Free Will
 

If somebody could see the future, wouldnt that negate the concept of free will?

I've had this arguement with religious friends of mine and they think that people are still free to decide their future.

I dont understand this reasoning at all. If anyone (including god and prophets) know what's gonna happen to someone at a certain time/certain date, where is the free will?

In all honesty, I'm suprised that no one's jumped on this yet.

The free will debate (debacle) is the thorn in the side of every philosopher this side of Plato: the realization that if something is omnipotent, or omnescient, rather, then the premise for free will goes down the drain: if the future can be known to anyone, be they celestial or not, then the free will of man cannot have any place in the scheme of things.

Firstly, the science: quantum theory is currently trying to explain the possibility of both free will and a ...for lack of a better word, divinity...that will let us have our cake and eat it too. The premise is this: particles that compose atoms, and therefore all matter (with the exception of anti-matter, but that's another story), called quarks, act erratic, and are unpredictable by any current laws of science. There exists a theoretical framework that these particles should act under, but, as stated before, they are unpredictable. The implication here, is that the brain is a fundamental organ that is posessed by man (and woman, settle down) that serves as a magnifier for this random behavior, and does so to such an extent that it eventually manifests itself as an actual representation of free will, or the choices that the person to whom the brain belongs actually occur as a result of those choices.

Novel idea, no?

I'd handle the religious implications of this right now, but I want to go home.

The above quantum notion aside (until quantum mechanics and the causal reality that we live in are reconciled), there isn't a good scientific explanation of free will either. Could it be that we just really dislike the notion of not being in charge? I think so. Determinism isn't really as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Like the Oracle said, the decision has already been made. We just have to try to understand it.

And people said the Matrix Reloaded wasn't as philosophical as the first one. Bah to them I say.

Did you see donnie darko? It had a somewhat interesting take on the concept.

Anyway, with science showing just how much of our brain is controlled by hormones and chemicals anyway, it looks like most of the time, god or no god, predistination or not, we are not in control.

That is precisely why it is impossible to see into the future.

Even if we are to forget momentarily about quantum randomness, the universe is still unpredictable. Even a purely deterministic (non-linear) system is unpredictable.
Take for instance a "spherical pendulum". It is a pendulum free to move in two dimensions, rather than one, and will result in coming to rest being held by one of four magnets.
Take the bob and hold it somewhere. Let it go swinging in motion. Over which of the four magnets will it come to rest? Surely we can calculate this? After all, it is obeying completely deterministic laws which are know to us.
Well chaos theory shows that we cannot hope to predict its future motion, as a slight discrepancy in our initial knowledge of the system will result in huge inaccuracies in our prediction, to the point of our predictions being completely useless.
i.e. making measurements which are 99.999% accurate will NOT result in predictions which are even close to being 99.999% accurate!
What is to stop us (in principle) from knowing the initial state of the system completely (ignoring Heisenberg)? Well it is the fact that to specify the position of a single particle precisely we require an infinite number of decimal places, which of course cannot be used in our equations!

So what was my point? Well, simply that determinism does not equate to predictability even in principle.

And what of Quantum Randomness?
I always cringe when people make the claim that quantum mechanics shows that it is possible for free will to exist. This is rubbish. People often claim that since there is a level of indeterminism inherent in quantum physics that it somehow opens the door for claims of a physical reality to the magical vitalist "consciousness stuff". This is garbage. Anyone who makes claims such as this, imho, simply does not possess as firm a grasp on quantum mechanics as they claim. Now I'm not claiming that quantum effects play no role in the actions of our brain, in fact I would be quite certain that such is the case, rather I am dismissing claims that "quantum randomness" leaves the room for an Aristotelian eidos or soul, that Newtonian determinism did not.

Anyway, sorry for the slight off-topic detour. To answer your original question:
You’re not supposed to understand, only God can understand. :rolleyes:

The thing I disliked about Reloaded was that it equated determinism and fate. The two are VERY different things.
Again, off topic...eeerrrkkk!

I can do anything that I will to do
but I can not choose my will

An unpredictable universe does not imply free will.

Random will, perhaps. But there is no evidence to suggest that it is "free," only that it is determined by a combination of random and complex physical factors.

Imagine a God who knows the result of every possible action, but leaves the choice of action to us, except for certain interventions (like parting the Red Sea, for example). It seems to me that it doesn't have to be free will vs. omniscience. It doesn't have to be one linear future.

but doesnt god know what we are going to choose?

I would imagine he knows what we're most likely to choose, with nth degreee certainty, but nothing ever has a 100% percent chance of happening until it's already happened.

Given this notion, premonition could be explained as knowledge of a divine intervention, or perhaps a subconscious, preternatural glimpse into exactly how an event is going to take place.

A network events converges to create an outcome that the subconscious mind can envision down to the very last detail. Or premonition has something to do with abilities of the human brain that we have not yet grasped.

Look up the CIA's Stargate Program on Google sometime for some interesting reading. It's controlled remote viewing, but it's still very intriguing.

No, because he's just about as real as the Tooth Fairy and Santa.

Anyway, religious people are hypocrites. They all say they have free will, but when something good happens to them they say that god did it for them and thank him, and when dog... er god, I always confuse the two for some reason, lets something bad happen to them they all say it was his vision and he has bigger plans for them. So all religious people basically say they're puppets and let a mythological creature control their lives........

I sure am glad I'm in full control of my life.

Ok I have a religious back ground. Lots of Christianity, some yoga (10 years plus) and mind altering drug years under my belt. Christian view on freewill (in a nut shell): God is three beings in One thus the Trinity. They (He) have a pure loving relationship and once decided to share it. He tried an experiment. He created a race of beings to share this love but they had to choose. Thus the angles were created. It worked for a while (a few billion earth years). The most beautiful creature He created, observed One (what we call the Son) of the Trinity being worshiped and loved by the angels and in a fraction of a second desired that for himself. Lucifer’s ego was created and he fell from grace. The first record of free will being used for selfish proposes. Gods experiment failed. A few billion years later He decided to do this again and created man to share in this Love relationship. He made man in His Image (not the flesh but the powerful spirit). Again He wanted us to share this love that holds the known universe together but it had to be our choice; Freewill.

I have cursed God over and over through out the years for giving me this freewill and a giant ego. They don’t play together very will. I have freely given back to Him my freewill. Over and over again. Some say the greatest saints were the biggest sinners. I am far from a saint and get tripped up on my sins. The biggest being self imposed ignorance.

Here is what I learned about freewill. It gets you in trouble. It doesn’t get along with the ego. Someday I will find the balance. Then I will no longer be His most unholy son.

I don't see the dichotomy. Let's agree, for the nonce, that there is a hypothetical being capable of peering into the far future. Said being glimpses the future. Let's say that the future is the one actual future, and nothing will alter it. Where does this invalidate the concept of free will? Any possible future, even this single dominant deterministic one, was built on the actions of those exercising their free will.

In essence, simply having a set future does not mean that one does not free will, it simply means that this theoretical being can see the result of that will.

if your actions are fixed, then you don't have free will. That is the entire definition of free will.
If we cannot alter our actions, then we don't have free will, we are mere automata with the illusion of having free will.

the future, being that it hasn't occured yet, can always be changed.

free will is being able to make YOUR own choice, whatever happends in the future hasn't occured yet, and you still can make whatever choice u want when the situation arrises

so who's to say the future hasn't occured already? Just because we can't see past our point in time doesn't mean its not there.

i was never a big believer in free will anyways. What is meant to be will be. And you have always been locked into your actions.

Also, is it really that bad if we were required to make the decisions that we would have chosen anyways had we not been locked into them?

Sure, Everyone has free will. We just don't have any control over it!:D

sometimes thoughts are about words only and not about anything else.

a corollary of this is, often, when discussing how things work using words, what is really being discussed is how words work, and nothing more.

a lot of what is called "philosophy" is just this

Here here!

If he can't see the future as it will be, he isn't perfect. But if he can see it, our actions are predetermined and we have no free will.

i think tom cruise proved that free will always exists in minority report

now that I have read this post, what outcome will this have on what I do tomorrow?
if I didn't choose to get out of bed because I could not get to bed, would I have posted to this topic at all?

I have only been through OAC Philosophy, but I believe the theory of parallel universes is quite relevant when it comes to free will and thus anyone who could see into the future would only be seeing one of the possible outcomes.

who can see into the future? Mystic Meg? Televangilists and their kin? Uri Geller!?

Predicting a future of a different reality that will not be experienced by us is precisely meaningless. If you are indeed to accept the anthropic multiverse principal (not a theory BTW) then predictions from an alternate "reality" are useless. In fact, one could argue that ALL predictions (guesses?) are perfectly precise, SOMEWHERE.

"if your actions are fixed, then you don't have free will. That is the entire definition of free will. "

Depends on your point of view. If you choose your action, if you weigh your choices on pros vs cons, etc, is that not free will? What matters if there is some deterministic future? If, at any moment, your choices matter little in the big picture, how does that diminish your ability to choose?

You seem to be implying that a set future removes your ability to choose. I say that a set future is the product of many choices. Now, if you add in the corollary of widespread foreknowledge, then you argue a point about a deterministic future devaluing free will. The hypothetical precognitive being will foresee the future and perhaps have a good case for its' free will being hampered, but the rest of humanity? Only if you are willing to argue that there is some being guiding billions of indvidual actors towards a certain set future.

"If we cannot alter our actions, then we don't have free will, we are mere automata with the illusion of having free will."

With such a statement you fall into the epistemological trap of phenomena. If an observer's whole phenomenal perceptive array shows us empirically to have free will, free will is reality for said observer. To say otherwise wanders away from any sort of empirically provable or observable reality into pointless metaphysics.

Honestly, your premise leads to the idea that an artist has no choice as to what she paints simply because the painting will eventually have some form. Look at it from the opposite side and try to prove that the theoretical existence of set future (an idea I find ludicrous), denies free will. How does the knowledge that some act I will make has an eventual outcome devalue my choice to perform said action?

Does a computer program have free will? It is an entirely deternministic algorithim. It could be programmed to weigh up pros and cons, giving each a different weighting. It has the ability to "choose" one output over another. Does it have free will? No. Because it's output is determined, even before it is run.

I am saying that if you know your future choice, you don't have to make it... a paradox. The hypothetical being can foresee other peoples choices. Assuming that the being DOES actual act "as he was supposed to" then the others will follow suit.

"Only if you are willing to argue that there is some being guiding billions of indvidual actors towards a certain set future." - I don't see how this follows.

So if you see legless angel bunnies floating around, they too are also "real"? Just because we believe that we have "free will" doesn't not make it real.

From my earlier post I expalined that I do not believe in determinism, either in practice or in principle. BUT, if you were to accept determinism, it would negate free will.

Because it means that you CANNOT choose to perform a different action. If you are only capable of "choosing" a single action, how is that a choice?

That's a perception question. What are you considering "real"?


Also, as long as I'm here, CSflim: I was not attempting to throw the quantum theory out as a be-all and end-all of the debate over free will, merely suggesting an option that I had not thought about for a while. Additionally, I was the first to reply, so I didn't have a feel for the forum, yet (I R teh n00b, of course.)

Tertiarily (sp?) What I was suggesting was that the human brain has been designed as a system in which a magnification of the randomness of these particles could provide a basis action that does not (or cannot) be completely predictable.

This means little to me, personally: I'm of the opinion that science is just as full of doubt as any religion: I simply thought that it was a valid answer to the question of free will; or, I wanted to provide a possibility grounded in science before people started breaking out their bibles and their Nietzsche.

edit: I was a jerk, and spelled "Nietzsche" wrong.

I believe that reality is not contingent on our perception of it. I believe that there is in existence an objective reality, which we can, at least in part, experience.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=21163

I'm not really sure that I follow what you're saying. Nothing is being held against you for being a "n00b". At the heart of philosophy lies debate. Don't take it as a personal attack if I disagree with you.
I assume that you were referring to my post
"I always cringe when people make the claim that quantum mechanics shows that it is possible for free will to exist".
I wasn't actually making direct reference to YOUR post there, rather the general consensus that somehow non-determinism/unpredictability=free will

I feel very strongly that quantum effects do indeed come into play when it comes the brain. But I don't see how this gives rise to free will. If you roll a dice, it cannot be predicted what number you will score. Does the dice therefore have free will?

" I'm of the opinion that science is just as full of doubt as any religion" - well that's your opinion, but I believe few rational people would agree with you. Perhaps you would like to give an example as to why you believe science is so full of doubt?
Granted there are many questions which we cannot yet answer, but we have come a very long way, and now understand much, much more than we did a thousand years ago. I have yet to see a priest harness divine intervention in the construction of a jumbo jet.
If you are going to point to quantum theory as an example of scientists "not having a clue" then I would put it too you that you do not fully understand what is going on. Certainly there is an indeterminacy involved in quantum events, but it is a precisely well defined indeterminacy. For the most part a quantum wavefunction will act in a very deterministic manner as defined by the Schroedinger equation. There is a precisely "calculatable" probability involved when said wave function collapses, when its effects are magnified to the classical level, but that is all.

what is your opinion on this statement:
"You don't accept that you have free will so you can blame whatever happends on someone else."


i dont really agree with this. it makes one wonder why we wouldn't have free will.

that doesn't really make sense, if free will doesn't exist, then who am I to blame "it" on? Whoever it is also doen't have free will.

God?... "I have no free will so i can blame everything bad that happends on God, because he made me do it so its not my fault"

*sigh* I hate the start of the week. Too busy to keep up with threads here. *grumbles*

Agreed. Again, though, I would have a tendency to at least connect the two. Barring any unforseen circumstances, if there was a non-determinalistic environment, then wouldn't the actions taken by the subjects in said environment be of their own volition? And ergo, at least partially, free will?


The number that you score cannont be accurately predicted at all times, though the framework of the possibilities can. The difference, however, is that in order for the die to actually make this action possible, it must be acted upon by an outside force. Due to that catalyst, which is the only way that it can make an entrance into that framework, the die cannot be said to have free will as such; only the ability to add a set amount of choices to a certain action.

Heh. Jumbo jet.

I'm sorry. I was pointing out the fact that the theory of evolution, the laws of thermodynamics and gravity, et. al. are not airtight, mostly due to the fact that they were based on a foundation of hypotheses that may or may not have been proven true under all situations. Do they allow for incredible leaps forward in technology and the sciences? Of course. Are they empirically more sound that any type of religious dogma? Perhaps...but only for the physicality of the medium of belief.
This was my opinion, and perhaps I should have left it out of a debate on free will, but I felt like saying it. It relies on this: that your average person (mean/median/etc.) who believes in evolution has about the same amount of knowledge of how that came about as the basic bible-thumper has of Genesis (both of the stories). People tend to rely on "noted scholars", or "eminent physicists" on subjects of incredible importance, when the only point of contact that they have with this physicist is through a newsfilter. This reminded me of the general Catholic spiritual view in which I was raised. Hence, my point (however cluttered and winding). Take it with a grain or so of salt, because it has very little to do with free will.

I never intended to use quantum mechanics to explain that scientists "have no clue;" though I do admit to being less knowledgeable than I would like to be in the quantum field. I understand that the randomness of the quantum particles are random to the extent of said probabalistic framework, and I based my earlier statement on the hypothesis (purely in theory, mind you)that the brain is built to enhance that probabalistic theory ad infinitum, and this may be an actual empiric loophole for the existance of free will.

No beef, man, no beef.

I totally agree with everything you say here.

Remember, if you are good on earth, be nice to everyone and give God money... you go to heaven.

If not you go to a place where you live in eternal pain for the rest of time, in complete agony with no chance of getting away from it all.

But remember... God loves you!!! :lol:

Am I the only one who thinks this is a little strange??

I'd have to say that blanket statements are not really a good way to go about things when free will is on the table. Firstly, I'd imagine that not everyone who believes in god believes that they have free will...hence the debate. Lutherans (or Calvinists, I always mix them up) are entirely determinalistic in their religious practices: basically, the placement in the afterlife of a man, woman, or child is decided by god before birth, or even conception. This basically invalidates any need to act good or evil, in the general senses of the terms. Hence, their entire life has been mapped out by god before anything happens, so there is no chance of free will.

Also, this: ...is not hypocracy (sp?). More like blind religion. And again, blanket statements rarely, if ever, are true.

I don't believe in God.

Ok, this occured to me, but I preffered to keep it simple, I was actually only using a dice as an analogy, but how about the decay of a radioactive atom. It is spontaneous (without cause) and unpredictible. Does it have free will?



Believing in the theory of evolution by natural selection because "my biology teacher said so" is indeed as ignorant as I believe in Creation becasue "my religeon teacher said so". I agree with that. The fact is that there is hard evidence to back up one of these "theories".
I make a point of never researching only one side of an argument. I have read a few Creation "Science" books, despite scornful looks and "what are you reading that crap for?". I'm reading this crap to make certain that it is indeed crap (Which of course it was).

Again i would agree with you in part. I believe that the brain does indeed harness the powers of quantum physics to aid in its operation, but I fail to see how this would result in free will. Would a quantum computer also have "free will"?

If the universe were predictable somehow, lets assume there is a way of calculating things out, then seeing into the future would actually cause the future to change. If you predicted the future based on the current state of events, now you have another factor that goes into the prediction equation: the knowledge of the future you just predicted. It's kind of a paradox I suppose, but it basically makes the future unpredictable.

Isn't it plausible that in multiple futures the same event could happen? Like how I can get from Boston to New York in 80 different ways, maybe a single event would still happen no matter what events lead up to it. Sure this means that we're not in control of that event, but we can still be in control of the events leading up to that event.

I know that sounds deterministic (or at least compatibilistic) but I totally have a libertarian view of free will. Couldn't it be that we can freely chose some things but not others? Like how I can move a rock with my hand, but not a mountain.

just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't mean they cant blame everything on a "higher being" or anyone else for that matter

either way that was just an outlandish statement that was made in my presence; i was using it to get a point across.

when people say "we have no free will" to me thats what it is saying.... "i have no free will so i can BLAME everything on someone else"... meaning they do not want to take responsibility for their own actions because "how can they be MY OWN actions if everything was predetermined."

One possible solution to this dilemma is in a kinda Frank Herbert way of looking at it. Not that prophets (or gods) can see the future precisely, rather they can see all possible futures and also, through knowledge of the present, see which paths are unfolding and most likely. Also the very ability to see the future would shape it in a way as well.

Just one way to look at it.

I don't wish to pass up the consequences of my actions onto a "higher being", God or other wise.

I also explained that I did not believe that actions are deterministic.

I believe that good deeds should be rewarded, and bad deeds punished, in the same way that a defective engine part gets removed. It may not have been that engine part's "choice" to go wrong, but that doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken against it.
The carrot and the stick still applies whether you have free will or not.

As for my "outlandish" statement, I was merely responding to your answer:

CSflim, I'm not sure I follow you. Admittedly, I've not read closely, but I keep seeing you bring up random things like radioactive decay and dice rolling and asking if this is free will. What is the point of auch a line of questioning? Perhaps it is best if you set about your definition of free will, that way we can see what objective criteria you are using to either accept or deny its' existence.

I am not asking this as a challenge, but as a legitimate question. We've argued free will quite a bit, but I am not certain anyone has taken the time to define what it is we are speaking of.

To counter the questions that I saw you ask:

1) Computer program - Yes, it 'makes choices', but those choices are based on pre-set instructions. Given the same set of inputs, a computer program will make the same precise choice again and again. It must do so because it is ruled by a set of algorithms that determine its' choices. It is also not sentient. I think I am fairly safe in positing that sentience is necessary for free will.

2) Rolling the dice - Certainly not free will. The die does not make any decision whatsoever. While it may not act the same in every given situation, there is neither reasoning behind its' acts nor sentience with which to decide what act to take.

3) Radioactive decay - see #2 for refutations of insensate objects lacking the facilities for free will.

--

Taking the argument in a slightly different direction, let's assume that our hypothetical being sees THE future. Not A future, not one of many possible futures, but THE future. What is to say that there are not many paths to reach said future? If our being sees a world devastated by war, are there not multiple ways to which we could reach that point? Again, just because a future is perceived it does not mean that the choices taken to reach said future are necessarily predetermined.

"entirely"




glass houses, my friend........

Talk about nit picking. Alchoholic Hero was explaing the beliefs of Calvinism, which ARE deterministic.

My arguments were merely a sort of reductio ad absurdum type argument. I was showing that:

a) Just because we make choices does not give us free will
b) Just because our decions are unpredictible (like a dice) does not give us free will.
c) Just because quantum effects come into play in our brains does not give us free will.

As these were all arguments put forward to show that we have free will.

I guess I would say that we do have a free will of a sort, but then we are getting into the horredeous lingustic arguments that Art warned about.
I don't believe in some mystical force or some metaphysical mind. Rather our "free will" comes from the action of our brains.
In the same way that a computer could be programmed to learn and make choices, I believe that we too make choices in a similar manner.
(However, I DO NOT believe that our brains are algorithmic in nature. I believe that our minds are much more powerful than that. I am using a computer as a metaphor, rather than a direct analogy)

Well, that is called Fate, and it's somehting that I most definately do not believe in.
However, despite there being multiple routes to that predicted future, the being is still restricting the actual future to move along these particular timelines.
This I don't believe to be funadamentally different to restricing our actual future to moe along ONE particular timeline. (At least from the point of view of the argument at hand.)
To put it another way:
If a war was predicted, is it not possible (in theory) for all the world to then act so as to prevent any war in the future? If it is not, then surely our free will has been restricted. Forget momentarily about arguments about human nature etc. as they are not really relevant to this argument.
If a prediction is made that A, and it would be possible for A to be avoided if men acted in a particular way, B. Would that prediction invalidate mens free will?
If men really had free will they could prevent A by B, but the prediction disallows B, so it cannot be claimed that men are acting out of their own free will when they do not act out B.

There is no such thing as FREE WILL, it comes at a cost.

CSflim: it wasnt directed at you. i was trying to get everyone's input.

but i get your point, the car engine got the idea across. now i understand where u come from, i dont agree but i understand the other side of the coin now

What about the possibility that everything happens at the same moment? What if we stop thinking of time as linear, but as a single point; for that matter disregard time all together as time is only an illusion in the first place. Doesn't that make the argument easier? This way there isn't a 'future', and therefore nothing to predict. It all happens at once, we just don't perceive it that way (yet)...

Well such an arguemnt would definately remove the possibility of free will. However it still raises the same problems of prediction. Can we, from out current vantage point predict what we are yet to experience?

Relativity considers time to be a dimension exactly like the spatial ones, but which we percieve differently, so that our present is just a spatial cross section on our temporal axis. I can see my feet now, even though they have different spatial coordinates to my head. I am wearing socks, but at another point on my time axis, I am not. If, as is overwhelmingly likely, we exist in more dimensions than we percieve, I think that the fifth dimension would act as a meta-time, which would contain different projections of our other axes at different points of its own. Thus someone could see into the future as it stood, but the future could be changed by free-will.

Perhaps a simpler analogy is this: You are standing on one street (The present) looking down another that runs off it at right angles (the future), keep sidestepping (free will) and you are looking down another street (another future).

I think there might be a solution to the grandfather paradox in this multiple temporal axes notion, but I'm too stupid and lazy to work it out.

This is kinda long, but it's exactly how I feel about this topic.

LINKY

we dont have completly free will either, what we chose is based on our personality. so we end up taking some stands as a human, and like other things and do other things than other humans, we're all different, and original, and intelectual. some choises are just too diverse, too different for your personality, you just wouldnt chose them. ofcorse you have the possibility to do just what you like, but that doesnt mean you will chose it.

so, i believe, there is no true and absolute free will, but only free will within the boundries of your own personality.

please explain why you wouldnt want free will?

edit: as for the article sixate posted:
God, by definition can do and choose whatever he wants, so choosing to give us free will by not seeing our thoughts makes complete sense and in no way contradicts anything.

I disagree. It contradicts everything. God is supposed to know all and see all that has happened and is supposed to know what is gonna happen even before it happens. So how is he not gonna know what I'm thinking at this moment. He should know exactly what I'm gonna type even before I type it. Therefore, I would have no free will if I believed in god. He'd just be pulling certain strings. He'd be the ultimate puppet master.

And lets say you are correct. Now don't you think that everyone who thanks god whenever they say he did something good for them is, well, just not too bright? You obviously think he does nothing to help or hurt anyone because we all have free will. So what's the point of going to church and praying to him. Sounds like a waste of time and energy to me. Sounds like he gave us all free will because he's too fucking lazy to make things right himself.

Maybe He doesn't want to. i'm sure his job is much harder than any of ours will ever be. Who said He was supposed to do anything? HE didn't; I think thats where mans' ideas come into play. I'm not saying He doesnt do any thing, i'm just saying it's just as likely that he doesn't do a specific thing, or that he does it differently.

you got it backwards! He gave us free will cause he knew we'd be too lazy to do the right thing so we'd have to try harder.


i understand what you say, but it's just as easily the exact opposite or of course, something none have ever thought of.

"My arguments were merely a sort of reductio ad absurdum type argument."

In that light, I can see why you chose the examples you did.

You mention fate, I ask what about inevitability. If you posit that any set future, regardless of what happens between now and then invalidates free will, would not the theoretically assured destruction of our planet by the Sun eventually 'dying' be a set and determined future? Does the sun's eventual failure invalidate free will? If you posit that we will move beyond this rock to colonize others before that point happenes, I ask if the eventual heat death of the universe then invalidate free will?

This is, to an extent, my own reductio ad absurdum, but it is valid. Simply because an event is set and unavoidable it does not follow that free will does not exist. We still make our choices, we still have free will within our own scope. Whtether or not our free will matters on the cosmic scale is only important in arguments such as this.

That is because these things are outside of our control, and nothing to do with free will.
I think it was assumed that the "prediction" involved was somehtign regarding human actions.

WOW! You are REALLY reaching now! "Maybe He doesn't want to" - You either know something....or you don't. You don't choose to know it or not.
Ok. Lets just say...This is God, he can do whatever the Hell he likes. He can choose not to know. Well that makes no difference. If our actions are knowable to God, then it invalidates free will, whether or not God actually "chooses" to know them.

Why are most people arguing that omniscience must equal control.

If I see a pitcher throw a ball I'm pretty sure it's going to go somewhere. That doesn't mean I made it do that. I would not think that knowing has to mean controlling.

Jdoe

You miss the entire point of the argument. How can you claim to be excercising Free Will, if all of your actions have been determined since the dawn of time?

I can't buy the argument that if God is all-knowing then all he knows is something he directly causes. He can know of something without causing it to be.

But I have a feeling we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Jdoe

thats what free will is

"That is because these things are outside of our control, and nothing to do with free will. I think it was assumed that the "prediction" involved was somehtign regarding human actions."

Hmm, again, I say it is an issue of scale. Our hypothetical being sees a vision of the future. The results of every action taken by every human on the planet for the next 40 years bring about the future 40 years from now. It is as beyond our (meaning us as individauls) control as the heat death of the universe. If we are influencial, we may exert some minor pull, but in the end, we are not that meaningful.

Here's how I explain free will.

You're watching a recording of a burglary. You see every action they take. You've seen this tape several times, so you already know how it ends. The burglars, on the other hand, didn't know exactly how everything was going to pan out when they started robbing the place. They had free will to make decisions as they saw fit.

This explains free will.

In this scene, you played god. Just because you watched the tape doesn't mean you made any decisions for them, and it doesn't mean that what they did was predestined. When they were making their decisions, it was 'free will'.

God already saw your recording, but, as far as you know, you're still making the videotape. You're still having free will and doing what you want. To understand this, you have to accept the fact that 'GOD' is something that exists on every plain, in every moment of space and time, past and future.

“But what if I don’t believe in god?”

Then what are you doing worrying about free will in the first place?

Re: Free Will
 

Free will is a set of choices, in my mind when people make predictions, they are giving you a possiblity of an outcome. This doesn't mean you can't change the path you travel by making different decisions.
This thread isn't just about God and free will, it's about free will in general.

So, will YOU take part in FREE WILL and respond to this thread?

what i dont understand is why you WOULDN'T want free will. thats saying that you never have a choice ever, who wants that? why would u not want to have a choice?

Unfortunately that's not how the world works!
I may want to be immortal, or I may want to be filthy rich...doesn't make it so.

so u are just going to default on the idea of choice. ok, fine. u can do that but i think thats a horrible existence.

i'd much rather hope i have a choice than forfeit the entire concept.
------more---questions------
did you choose not to accept that you have freewill? .... or did someone do that for you?

For the sake of argument let's assume that there is a god, the Bible is his word, and his stories of rapture and the Second Coming are all truth. If we assume this to be true it would mean that we are living in Pre-Destiny. God knows all too well that these terrible events are going to happen. He knew about it from the beginning of time. So, for the last 2000 years we have all just been actors in his play. All the murders, the rape, the disease, the pain, the sorrow, the hate, wars, acts of terrorism, the genocide have all be part of his great plan. And our lives, good or bad, have all been planned out for us.
Every thought I’ve ever had, every action I have ever taken, every emotion I have ever felt has been part of god's Divine Plan. When I was created (in his image none-the-less) he made me an atheist. He has made me write this paper dedicated to pointing out cracks in the divine plan. It seems wonderful to think that god has decided that in my later years I would live a happy fulfilling life with two beautiful children and a woman that I love dearly, but will I really feel those things? And does it matter either way? Essentially I am just a robot, a cog in the machine that is the Earth.

Consider the murderers and rapists of the world. They are all included in God's Divine Plan as well. He placed them on earth just to make other people's lives miserable. Why would a loving god do such a thing? Why would he put into being, a predestine act so atrocious? For what purpose would it serve? If we are all predestine, then we cannot blame the rapist or the murderer for "they know not what they do." Everyone is following the Ultimate Screenplay written and directed by the big Steven Spielberg in the sky.

Praying to him every night does nothing, because he already has it all figured out. In fact, he knew what we were going to be doing today 2000 years ago (if not a couple Billion years ago). What makes you think that by praying every night, and going to church every Sunday is going to change?
We don't have the capacity for freewill, so why should we be accountable to for anything? Why try to live a Christian lifestyle when god has already determined who is going to heaven and who is going to hell?
If, in fact, we are predestine by god's hand then we cannot go against him anyway. I can write and write and try to convince people that what they’ve had stuffed down their throat since early childhood may not in fact be correct. And reject Christianity, as a damaging lifestyle, but none of it will make any difference. God programmed you to believe what you will and disregard everything else. you have no choice in the matter.

Predestine life, regardless if it is one of "success" or "failure", has no meaning. There can be no real happiness, love, hate, emotion, or feeling. Humans, and non-human animals, all become bits of machinery in Gods little movie we call Life. The concept of pre-destiny might seem like a lovely one at first thought, but when you really inspect if you can clearly see the negative aspects outweigh the "good" ones by a-million-to-one.

First of all am I not defaulting on anything. I have laid out my argument against "Free Will" in this thread. I am not just assuming.

Second of all, I'm not interested in what makes me comfortable. i am interested in waht is.

Like I said, when going against free will, I am really going against the idea of "magic", be it in the form of a God, a soul or an immaterial eidos.

I do make choices, and nothing forces me to make them, so in that sense, I guess there is no denying that I have free will.

I could use a computer as a metaphor for our brain. It makes choices, but there is nothing "magical" about its opperation.

(Having said that, I think it's important to realise that I am only using a computer as a metaphor, not something that is strictly analogous. I believe that there are fundamental differences between the workings of our brain and a computer)

Of course we have free will. We can do whatever we want. How can there be any question? I am in control of my own life and every decision I make is my own decision, not that of a "higher power". Real life is not The Matrix.

We can't see the future, so I can't answer that part of the question.

Prove it.
Exercise free will.
Tel you what, I am going to order you to do something, and you will either do it (A), or not do it (B).

Touch your nose with your finger
.
.
.
Did you do it? More importantly did you exercise free will when you did it? How can you prove to me that your decison to do A or B, was nothing more than a rather elaborate case of stimulus: response?
You certainly percieve your free will, but how can you prove that it is genuine.
Lets try again, this time try to REALLY force your free will. Try to defy your stimulus:response impulse. Ready...
Place the palm of your hand on your forehead.
.
.
.
Did you do it? Did you exercise free will that time?

CSFilm, you, of course, are asking for PROOF of something that can not be proven. That is an easy thing to do: ask for proof that you know cannot be supplied. Knowing that, why are you asking? To be sarcastic? What?

I can run around and act like a rooster or I can shit on my carpet or I can wear shoes that don't match each other or I can quit my job. I have the freedom of choice to do any of those things. And, yes, it is possible for me to consider the consequences of my actions before I do those things and make a decision based on that. Because I have freedom of thought, also. I had the freedom to smirk at your last post because I thought it was condescending and childish and not very witty but a little arrogant, as if YOU have some sort of hidden proof you are keeping from the rest of us.

That is as close as anyone can come to proving they have the freedom of coice: by actually making a choice. We all do it every day.

Sit around all day and wait for something to make all of your choices for you. *spoiler alert* You will sit all day and nothing will make your choices for you.

By saying the choices we make are not actually our choices at all, but predetermined, is just as unproveable. It is an interesting theory that does not have enough backbone for me to buy into.


*sidenote* Bringing God into a discussion like this is like bringing abortion up at a tupperware party. IF there is a God, how can anyone be pompous enough to believe they can actually comprehend anything he has done or will do? IF He/it exists, that would mean He is our creator, hence, we are probably not quite on the same intellectual level as He is, if you know what I mean, hence have no idea what we are talking about, as He could change anything whenever He wanted to. I am NOT arguing for the exsitence of God, but since people keep bringing it up, those are my thoughts.

docbungle appologies, I didn't mean to appear condescending, I was merely illustrating the flaw in your arguement by stating so matter-of-factly "Of course we have free will", as if there was nothing to discuss.

I was showing, how a magical "free will" could very easily be replaced by an elaborate stimulus-respose system, i.e. our brain.

I have shown, that unless you are willing to acept that the physical action of our brains does not follow the laws of physics, then you cannot have your magical free will.

If you read some of my above posts, then you may understand my position more clearly. I do not believe that we are mere puppets, being controlled by something/someone else.

Some scientific evidence to back up my opinion on free will.

-Roger Penrose

The second experiment, despite being fascinating, is not really of huge relevance to our discussion here.

What is interesting about this experiment is that there appears to be a discrepancy about what we 'perceive' and what 'is'. We perceive ourselves only to have decided, a split second ago to flex our mussel. But according to the EEG, our brain has decided to flex the finger up to second and a half before then! It seems that our perception is lying to us!
Also bear in mind that the EEG is not simply registering the person thinking about flexing their finger. As in: "I'm going to flex my finger in 5...4...3...2...1...NOW". The subjects perceived themselves as making sudden split-second decisions.
This raises some very serious concerns about the concept of Free Will. Since our perception of our free will is our only evidence that we have free will, when that perception is shown to be deceptive, you cannot help but wonder. What if I am nothing but a passive 'observer'? I might perceive making a choice, but how do I know that perception is truthful?

One thing that was not mentioned above was, what happens when we mix both internal 'Free Will' with external responses?

Consider the same set up above, with the person receiving an EEG, and being asked to flex his finger suddenly, at random times. But there is an added constraint. He is told not to flex his finger while a little light indicator is switched on.
We now connect the light to the EEG, in such a way that it will occasionally light up when it detects that the subject is about to flex his finger. What will we observe? More importantly what will the subject perceive?
What we will observe is this:
We will start to observe the tell-tale signs that the subject is about to flex his finger.
The light will switch on.
A fifth of a second later, the tell-tale signs will begin to fade away.
The light will switch off.
It appears that an external stimulus can "over-ride" our internal free will.
What does the subject perceive? Well nothing actually, he sees a bulb light up, and go off again. As far as he is concerned, he had no intention of flexing his finger (after all, he would only become aware of this decision a second later!)

A quick response to Cnor's post:

I just got this great visual of all the soccer moms in "GOD BLESS AMERICA (NEVER FORGET 9/11) *YELLOW RIBBON AROUND THE 'TWIN TOWERS'*" t-shirts. Then I got this visual of a tshirt with the NY world trade center buildings on fire, with big text - "GOD'S PLAN. HE HAS A DARK SENSE OF HUMOR I GUESS."

Sorry, yeah, dark and insensitive. I know. Doesn't change the fact it's hilarious.

ok i understand your perspective on it now.

as for this experiment it is very interesting. something to try but kinda O/T: when you are in bed, before you are ready to sleep but still sleepy, lie still and dont move your hand. then try no to move it, and then just move it really suddenly. you can actually confuse yourself to not move your hand when you really want to but when u are actually trying not to move it, it does.

anyway, so you are suggesting that free will is simply perceived because it looks like we have it, but only looks like we have free will we dont actually have it.

hmm i dont know what to say, if thats so then at least we have a choice to accept it or blindly disregard it. i dunno.


but as lotsa things in life it is unprovable (dunno if thats the right word but yea)

Free will is what surrounds you on a continual basis. It is what poses a choice between standing or sitting, loving or leaving and coming and going.

When you think about it, with each action comes a change in the course of your life. By walking on one side of the road instead of the other, you may arrive at your destination a half second earlier. That half second can make all the difference in the world. Such as presenting someone/something to you that you would have otherwise missed had you arrived that half second later.

It's funny what a low emphasis we place on small amounts of time such as these, given that they pose just as large an emphasis on the direction of our lives as extended ones we believe to do the same.

It's kind of funny when you think about it, really. Just by reading this post you have completely changed your life. You could have passed on it, decided to leave the house and arrived to be the sole witness in a massive car wreck just outside your door. Instead, you're here, wondering what kind of accident it would have been.

It truly amazes me what a complicated fixture this game of life can be sometimes.