Free will - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

noahfor · 05-28-2004, 09:22 PM

Of course I'm not sure. I just thought that is what everyone believed, and it is what I believe. If that is all they are than I can't see how we can have free will.

alkaloid · 06-02-2004, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheKak
It is hard to believe in freewill due to causality, though I like to keep the illusion going to myself in order to keep personal accountability for everyone else.

I think it's pretty easy for many (i hope most) of us to accept causality in the world. If you drop a bowling ball on your foot, it's likely to hurt, and maybe you will break a bone or two. If you jump off a 1000ft tall building, you are likely to die. If you are taking a class and don't study, you are likely to do less well in the test. If you don't drink or eat for a few weeks, or months, you are likely to die. etc. You can construct more complicated cause-effect chain, too. And after a while, you find out that it's pretty hard to predict future.

If we accept something happens because of something that preceded it, then we can accept that our thoughts happen because of something that preceded it, either an action or another thought, or more likely a combination of many things. Is this too much of jump?

Then (some) people will suddenly jump up and freak out. Nononono, this can't be. My mind can't be determined by other things, because my mind is FREE! It has to be that there is free will, because I FEEL it. Why can't you FEEL it? Isn't it obvous? Yes, I have to believe that there is free will, because I'm not a robot, I'm not a slave to the circumstances.

When some people talk about free will, they often say or imply something like, "Look at this alcoholic. He is a loser because he chose to drink unreasonably large quantities of cheap booze when he could will himself not to drink. Why can't he just say no?

If by free will, you mean if you wish something hard enough and work hard enough, then you will be able to do something, like conquering alcoholism, or climbing Mount Everest. Of course, that means the alcoholics simply choose to be losers. And circumstances are no excuse. If your mother was an alcoholic, and your father was alcoholic, and your grandfather was alcoholic, and your brother is an alcoholic, that doesn't mean you have to be an alcholic. Just say no. Just put your mind to it. If you try hard enough, you will be successful. Don't pay attention to the statistics that says that you are 100 times more likely to be alcoholic.

If you were sexually molested as a child, I know it's very tough, but just get over it and become a doctor. Don't become like that loser stripper girl, Jennifer, next block, or like Bob, thefriendly neighborhood pedophile living in the trailer park few miles from here. You have a free will. You can get over it. Become a doctor. There is no problem, because your mind is free, completely free from any external influences. Remember, you have CHOICES.

Yes, you have 20 friends who smoke and 1 who don't. I know you feel like smoking sometimes but get over it. Use your judgement and exercise your FREE will and just don't smoke.

Yes, you on welfare. Just stop it, and become a genius like me. Remember, your mind is free. I know you are 40 years old and didn't quite finish junior high school, but that doesn't matter. Now is the time. I'm telling you that you are totally free to do whatever you want. Don't be a loser, become a college graduate just like me! No matter that my family trust paid for my private school, my first BMW and college education. No I'm not paying for your education. Get your own family wealth.

And you, just jumped out from an airplane, and you can't open your parachute? Well, try harder. If you can't open the parachute, then try flapping your arms very fast. And try to catch the updraft at the last moment. Good luck. You can do it! Don't give up!

asaris · 06-02-2004, 06:57 AM

Nice rhetoric, alkaloid, but I don't see the argument.

It seems to me to be rather clear that we have free will, in some sense of the word. Consider the two following arguments.

1. It is clear that we have moral responsibility for some of our actions. Yet some actions, which we might otherwise consider to be immoral, we excuse with language like "He was forced to". Now, leaving out cases where the 'compulsion' is merely coercion, it is rather easy to come up with cases where, in ordinary language, we'd describe the agent in question as acting against their will. We typically view this as exculpatory. Let us by stipulation call that feature, which ascribes to some acts moral responsibility and which excuses other acts when it is being acted against, free will.

2. Consider two scenarios where a man on the subway kicks my shin. In the first scenario, he does so 'accidentally' -- in this case, we would typically excuse his act; we would say he's not responsible for what he did. In the second scenario, he kicks me on purpose -- in this case, we would blame him for the act; we would say he's responsible. Let us call that faculty which is absent in the first case and present in the second 'free will'.

There are two things to notice about these arguments. Neither one presumes anything about the nature of free will -- neither the compatibilist and libertarian positions contradict these observations, at least on their face. But note also that if you deny the existence of free will; if you argue that it's all just causality, you will have, at least, a difficult time distinguishing between the cases where we assign moral responsibility and the cases we don't.

noahfor · 06-02-2004, 09:16 AM

Quote:

if you argue that it's all just causality, you will have, at least, a difficult time distinguishing between the cases where we assign moral responsibility and the cases we don't.

Can you give examples of these cases? Please.

Jynx · 06-02-2004, 09:16 AM

alkaloid: see, the problem in your argument is that overcoming those odds ARE possible....they are at times monumental, but they ARE possible. as an example: my mother-in-law's mother, father, and brother were all alcoholics. she is not, by pure force of will. she's been drunk before, but she just decided that she wouldn't drink, and she hasn't.

so, while it seems harsh, the fact is that under normal circumstances (and sometimes under abnormal circumstances), you can accomplish what you want, if your 'will' is strong enough. if i work hard enough, then i CAN climb mt everest. if i try hard enough, i CAN break my nailbiting habit. if i try hard enough, i CAN kick my smoking habit.

please don't confuse a lack of discipline with a lack of free will.

asaris · 06-03-2004, 08:48 AM

noahfor -- I've already given one. Do you want more?

ibis · 06-05-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by noahfor
Is there such thing as free will. I don't believe so, but I think life is set up in such away that it doesn't mater. The illusion is just as satisfying, not that I have experienced free will. I'm sure someone else on here believes that we have no free will, and I'm sure they can argue why better than I can, so I'll let that happen.

If you look at the old testimate you see countless expamples of the "father" side of God. I've always thought that's why he made us, for him to be our "father" and us to be his childeren.

Therefore, have you ever met a father that didn't want his childeren to have free will? If he created us without freewill we'd simply be pupets.

God's not like that, he's all about the relationship.

Nafter · 06-07-2004, 07:24 PM

I think i see where your coming from with the you have the choice if you try hard enough to overcome odds. But my belief, - that we have no real free will is deeper than this.

For example take the drinking example, your mother doesnt drink, the past experiances, knowing father and brother and how they get, all external pressure, everything that influences her, all push the decisions she makes one way or another, so although she may think she has the choice to drink or not to drink, in actual fact due to everything influencing her she would only make the one choice, that is not to drink. Everyone has the same thing happen with every event in thier lives, will i cross the road? my thought processes at the time due to the makeup of my brain due to events that happened the enviroment etc all lead to only one conclusion, may it be cross or not.

So though we feel we have made the decision it actual fact we''re just particles interacting with each other, with enough monitoring the future could be predicted.

Take criminal pychologists, they have the job of predicting what a criminal, murderer or whatever will do next, they can see by the crime. If you "get into the head" of the criminal enough it can be predicted what they will. Take this to another level with normal people, things etc, and you should in theory predict what will happen, until the end of time.

This gives a illusion that we have choice but in reality we dont.

Im an athiest and dont believe in a higher power.

I hope someone can challege this and throw up a counterarguement im very openminded about this

noahfor · 06-07-2004, 09:12 PM

I'll challenge you, even though I believe what you say. Particles of matter move and what not according to true probability. When you flip a coin there is a 50/50 chance it will land heads, but that isn't true probabiility, one can predict on which side it will land, it isn't probable, which side will land is determined once the coin is flipped and maybe even before that, but the path a certain particle will take, or the position it will end up is not definite until it take the path. Any path it can take is only a possible one. Obviously my understanding of quantum mechanics is not very good, but bear with me. Maybe humans have some magical free will power which lets us decide which of many possible paths our brain atoms can take when they are involved in making a choice or thinking. Now I don't actually believe this. I believe we don't have free will on two levels. One is that we are just atoms, and they move about on their own, and their actions can be predicted, and you get it. Another is that our choices are influenced by feeling, and that we don't actually decide on what we feel, so we are just going by feelings that we have not chosen to feel. I can explain this better when I'm in the right state of mind.

asaris · 06-08-2004, 06:42 AM

As far as predicatibility goes -- well, fine. So, proximally and for the most part, you can predict what someone is going to do, and the better you know that person, the more accurate your predictions. But just because people are predictable, doesn't mean that they don't have free will. It just means they're predictable.

So, we are just atoms? But because of quantum indeterminacy, the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted with total accuracy. (In any case, even if you're an bald naturalist about mental phenomena, it's not atoms, but electrical impulses. But I digress).

And yes, our choices are influenced by feeling. They're influenced by a lot of things. That's why they're choices. If choice was merely random, it wouldn't be free will.

It's probably good to note that I am not proposing here that free will is incompatible with determinism. Nothing I've said contradicts the compatibilist position. Now, if it turns out that, as a condition of possibility for morality, free will needs to be radically free, compatibilism will turn out to be false. But I've not said anything that would necessarily lead someone to that conclusion.

noahfor · 06-08-2004, 01:48 PM

Well actually an electrical impulse only travels across one neuron before molecules are needed to carry on the signal, and the neurotransmitter system determines the nature of the "signal" that is traveling through the brain, so saying atoms is just as correct as saying electrical impulses, especially since I was just using atoms to represent the physical predictable nature of the brain, whereas you were saying that mental phenomena consists solely of electrical impulses.

duckznutz · 06-11-2004, 03:41 PM

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I beleive that the only true freedom any of us has is the freedom to decide for ourselves what life is all about (which nails my atheist beliefs firmly to the mast!).

Secondly, whilst I believe that those people intelligent enough to make informed choices about their lives (ie free will) can do so, whilst the common herd follow their stomachs and their genitals . . . I feel that the discussion in this thread so far has been too 'philosophical' and detached from reality.

What I mean is that even if you accept that you have free will you must consider the specific realities of your situation. You can only exercise your theoretical freewil on the choices which are offered you! ie. you MUST choose from the foodstuffs and carsa and technology and TV programmes and music and movies WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR YOU IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD! Conspiracy theory alert! It is the people who control the limited choices which you have open to you who have the real control . . . . so maybe not as free as you think huh? Lets see if any of you Americans can go out and choose to buy a bottle of Barrs Irn Bru and a Caramac chocolate Bar? I know I cant buy any of the stuff you Americans can buy? Wheres the freewill gone?

06-02-2004, 06:57 AM	#43 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Nice rhetoric, alkaloid, but I don't see the argument. It seems to me to be rather clear that we have free will, in some sense of the word. Consider the two following arguments. 1. It is clear that we have moral responsibility for some of our actions. Yet some actions, which we might otherwise consider to be immoral, we excuse with language like "He was forced to". Now, leaving out cases where the 'compulsion' is merely coercion, it is rather easy to come up with cases where, in ordinary language, we'd describe the agent in question as acting against their will. We typically view this as exculpatory. Let us by stipulation call that feature, which ascribes to some acts moral responsibility and which excuses other acts when it is being acted against, free will. 2. Consider two scenarios where a man on the subway kicks my shin. In the first scenario, he does so 'accidentally' -- in this case, we would typically excuse his act; we would say he's not responsible for what he did. In the second scenario, he kicks me on purpose -- in this case, we would blame him for the act; we would say he's responsible. Let us call that faculty which is absent in the first case and present in the second 'free will'. There are two things to notice about these arguments. Neither one presumes anything about the nature of free will -- neither the compatibilist and libertarian positions contradict these observations, at least on their face. But note also that if you deny the existence of free will; if you argue that it's all just causality, you will have, at least, a difficult time distinguishing between the cases where we assign moral responsibility and the cases we don't. __________________ "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

06-02-2004, 09:16 AM	#45 (permalink)
Jynx Upright	alkaloid: see, the problem in your argument is that overcoming those odds ARE possible....they are at times monumental, but they ARE possible. as an example: my mother-in-law's mother, father, and brother were all alcoholics. she is not, by pure force of will. she's been drunk before, but she just decided that she wouldn't drink, and she hasn't. so, while it seems harsh, the fact is that under normal circumstances (and sometimes under abnormal circumstances), you can accomplish what you want, if your 'will' is strong enough. if i work hard enough, then i CAN climb mt everest. if i try hard enough, i CAN break my nailbiting habit. if i try hard enough, i CAN kick my smoking habit. please don't confuse a lack of discipline with a lack of free will. __________________ Truth is independant of Belief.

06-03-2004, 08:48 AM	#46 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	noahfor -- I've already given one. Do you want more? __________________ "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

06-07-2004, 07:24 PM	#48 (permalink)
Nafter Insane Location: The Eng	I think i see where your coming from with the you have the choice if you try hard enough to overcome odds. But my belief, - that we have no real free will is deeper than this. For example take the drinking example, your mother doesnt drink, the past experiances, knowing father and brother and how they get, all external pressure, everything that influences her, all push the decisions she makes one way or another, so although she may think she has the choice to drink or not to drink, in actual fact due to everything influencing her she would only make the one choice, that is not to drink. Everyone has the same thing happen with every event in thier lives, will i cross the road? my thought processes at the time due to the makeup of my brain due to events that happened the enviroment etc all lead to only one conclusion, may it be cross or not. So though we feel we have made the decision it actual fact we''re just particles interacting with each other, with enough monitoring the future could be predicted. Take criminal pychologists, they have the job of predicting what a criminal, murderer or whatever will do next, they can see by the crime. If you "get into the head" of the criminal enough it can be predicted what they will. Take this to another level with normal people, things etc, and you should in theory predict what will happen, until the end of time. This gives a illusion that we have choice but in reality we dont. Im an athiest and dont believe in a higher power. I hope someone can challege this and throw up a counterarguement im very openminded about this __________________ I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

06-08-2004, 06:42 AM	#50 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	As far as predicatibility goes -- well, fine. So, proximally and for the most part, you can predict what someone is going to do, and the better you know that person, the more accurate your predictions. But just because people are predictable, doesn't mean that they don't have free will. It just means they're predictable. So, we are just atoms? But because of quantum indeterminacy, the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted with total accuracy. (In any case, even if you're an bald naturalist about mental phenomena, it's not atoms, but electrical impulses. But I digress). And yes, our choices are influenced by feeling. They're influenced by a lot of things. That's why they're choices. If choice was merely random, it wouldn't be free will. It's probably good to note that I am not proposing here that free will is incompatible with determinism. Nothing I've said contradicts the compatibilist position. Now, if it turns out that, as a condition of possibility for morality, free will needs to be radically free, compatibilism will turn out to be false. But I've not said anything that would necessarily lead someone to that conclusion. __________________ "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

05-28-2004, 09:22 PM	#41 (permalink)
noahfor Addict	Of course I'm not sure. I just thought that is what everyone believed, and it is what I believe. If that is all they are than I can't see how we can have free will.

06-07-2004, 09:12 PM	#49 (permalink)
noahfor Addict	I'll challenge you, even though I believe what you say. Particles of matter move and what not according to true probability. When you flip a coin there is a 50/50 chance it will land heads, but that isn't true probabiility, one can predict on which side it will land, it isn't probable, which side will land is determined once the coin is flipped and maybe even before that, but the path a certain particle will take, or the position it will end up is not definite until it take the path. Any path it can take is only a possible one. Obviously my understanding of quantum mechanics is not very good, but bear with me. Maybe humans have some magical free will power which lets us decide which of many possible paths our brain atoms can take when they are involved in making a choice or thinking. Now I don't actually believe this. I believe we don't have free will on two levels. One is that we are just atoms, and they move about on their own, and their actions can be predicted, and you get it. Another is that our choices are influenced by feeling, and that we don't actually decide on what we feel, so we are just going by feelings that we have not chosen to feel. I can explain this better when I'm in the right state of mind.

06-08-2004, 01:48 PM	#51 (permalink)
noahfor Addict	Well actually an electrical impulse only travels across one neuron before molecules are needed to carry on the signal, and the neurotransmitter system determines the nature of the "signal" that is traveling through the brain, so saying atoms is just as correct as saying electrical impulses, especially since I was just using atoms to represent the physical predictable nature of the brain, whereas you were saying that mental phenomena consists solely of electrical impulses.

06-11-2004, 03:41 PM	#52 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	This is indeed an interesting discussion. I beleive that the only true freedom any of us has is the freedom to decide for ourselves what life is all about (which nails my atheist beliefs firmly to the mast!). Secondly, whilst I believe that those people intelligent enough to make informed choices about their lives (ie free will) can do so, whilst the common herd follow their stomachs and their genitals . . . I feel that the discussion in this thread so far has been too 'philosophical' and detached from reality. What I mean is that even if you accept that you have free will you must consider the specific realities of your situation. You can only exercise your theoretical freewil on the choices which are offered you! ie. you MUST choose from the foodstuffs and carsa and technology and TV programmes and music and movies WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR YOU IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD! Conspiracy theory alert! It is the people who control the limited choices which you have open to you who have the real control . . . . so maybe not as free as you think huh? Lets see if any of you Americans can go out and choose to buy a bottle of Barrs Irn Bru and a Caramac chocolate Bar? I know I cant buy any of the stuff you Americans can buy? Wheres the freewill gone? __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.