Do You Believe in Free Will?

[Sententia]

Maybe your idea of what "free will" is just needs to change.

Perhaps...

All social behavior can be modeled as an emergent process, and the perception of free will external to causality is essentially a gift of ignorance. You percieve that everything your doing is because you are choosing to do it and hold the illusion that at any moment you could just change anything you wanted about yourself. Free will is an illusion and we are all essentially robots following predetermined code based on our current environment with our current upbringing code. Don't generalize too much, two brothers can be raised in the same household and go to the same schools yet have completely different experiences and radically different equipment.

Our brains are constructed of synapses that process our input signals and then trigger a reaction and work much like a modern computer. We have desires because those desires were imprinted from some external source. For example you may want to go to Chili's more often then other restaurants and would still believe you chose to go there while denying their monthly blitz ad campaign had anything to do with influencing you to go there.

Here's a quote from Spinoza on the subject:

“The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum,” Spinoza wrote. “This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.”​

So you may not currently be able to predict what will happened at any given moment but I do not want to mistake programming and randomness for free will.

I am truly personally debating this with myself and when the mood strikes me I research it and take notes and try to come to some conclusions... but I am just debating it.

It is a very interesting subject. I know there are some transhumanists here so one of their trademarks if you take a person and switch one neuron with a machine that performs the same function and that person acted and reacted and even felt exactly the same is that person still human?

So take it farther, replace another and another until they are all replaced. Essentially you have a very, very complex machine but essentially it is a machine and it is running its code. To say it has free will one way or the other may just be a fundamental disconnect when it comes to explaining or understanding free will.

Thats essentially where I'm at right now... Any recommendations?

 

[sandandfoam]

Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain.

Soon CS, Brass M, Heinze HJ, Haynes JD.
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Stephanstrasse 1A, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.
from here Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Soon CS, Brass M, Heinze HJ, Haynes JD. Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Stephanstrasse 1A, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

 

[crystalonyx]

I think free will could be defined as choosing an outcome that cannot be predicted in advance. As such free will does exist, unless one can come up with a model to predict human behavior on an individual basis with certainty.

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't choose to define free will in terms of choice. It seems to miss the mark, which for me is that free will is about us, being, here, now, enacting not just choice but everything we enact. It's about not being mindless, a part of the Machine of Destiny, but having the mind to be separate and distinct from the machine.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yes? No? Why or why not?

My inclination is to think that our choices are not entirely free. That is, we have a choice of A, B, and C in a given situation. Using reason, we can choose one course of action while rejecting the other two.

That is, I can choose one career path over another. etc

Thoughts?

James

I think that while we have free will at some level, we are much less free at the conscious level than we like to think. While we may think choosing between A, B and C is a matter of reason, there are always unconscious influences and determinants. Perhaps it is more accurate to say we are free only in the direction of our nature. That is, consciousness informs unconscious and superconscious where the decisions are freely made by the nature of our personality.

 

[Imagist]

I think that we are, as a whole, just very complicated chemical, nuclear, and subatomic reactions.

Consciousness is a poorly-defined term to the point of silliness. It is particularly silly when we attempt to associate it uniquely with humanity, as if the neurons in our brain were any different from the neurons in a rat's brain. They are only different in complexity. This kind of hubris, thinking that humans are somehow different (read: better) than the rest of the universe, will only hinder our understanding of the universe in which we live.

Finally, to argue that consciousness indicates free will is a ridiculous jump in logic.

But, what I ask is, what difference does it make? If we have free will, thinking that we don't won't change that. If we don't have free will, there's nothing we can do about it. There's nothing about this argument that changes how we should treat our fellow human beings, how we should view gods, or what we should eat for breakfast in the morning.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think that we are, as a whole, just very complicated chemical, nuclear, and subatomic reactions.

While consistent with atheism, this point of view has philosophical consequences.

Consciousness is a poorly-defined term to the point of silliness. It is particularly silly when we attempt to associate it uniquely with humanity, as if the neurons in our brain were any different from the neurons in a rat's brain. They are only different in complexity. This kind of hubris, thinking that humans are somehow different (read: better) than the rest of the universe, will only hinder our understanding of the universe in which we live.

Consciousness is poorly defined because no one really knows what it is or if it is.

Finally, to argue that consciousness indicates free will is a ridiculous jump in logic.

Perhaps, but this ignores the logical implications and philosophical consequences.

But, what I ask is, what difference does it make? If we have free will, thinking that we don't won't change that. If we don't have free will, there's nothing we can do about it. There's nothing about this argument that changes how we should treat our fellow human beings, how we should view gods, or what we should eat for breakfast in the morning.

This is where we come face to face with the logical implications and philosophical consequences. To say, "There's nothing about this argument that changes how we should treat our fellow human beings," implies choice in the way we treat our fellows. You're saying, in other words, "There is nothing to indicate free will exists, but we can choose how we treat others." This, of course, is utter nonsense.:areyoucra Moreover, if there is no free will, one idea cannot be more true or meaningful than any another because all are the inevitable outcome of mechanistic mathematical probabilities and whatnot. It's easy to say we believe free will does not exist, but it's very difficult to actually believe it.

Free will/no free will is a foundational belief determining how we relate to the world. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of an organizing mind and the creative qualities of spirit. ("Spirit," here, is not used used in a religious way, but to denote a pruposive and vital or animating force.) When I see rats, or for that matter, apes, create a symphony or a great piece of art, then I might seriously consider the idea that humans are nothing more than a sophisticated version of the same thing.

 

[Imagist]

To say, "There's nothing about this argument that changes how we should treat our fellow human beings," implies choice in the way we treat our fellows. You're saying, in other words, "There is nothing to indicate free will exists, but we can choose how we treat others."

That's not at all what I'm saying, but I'll admit that I didn't explain myself thoroughly.

There's a famous argument for theism that says that, assuming we don't know whether or not God exists, we should act as if he did, because the punishment for being wrong if God does exist is worse than the punishment for being wrong if he doesn't. I don't believe this argument holds water because a) the chances of there being a God are next to nothing and b) there are negatives to being theist that this argument discludes.

However, in the case of free will and non-free will and how we should act, there really aren't any negatives to doing good if we have free will - you were going to do it all along. If you do have free will, you should do good because it's the right thing to do. So unless you can establish that free will is importantly related to something other than the way we should act, the argument is mildly interesting, but irrelevant.

Free will/no free will is a foundational belief determining how we relate to the world. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of an organizing mind and the creative qualities of spirit. ("Spirit," here, is not used used in a religious way, but to denote a pruposive and vital or animating force.) When I see rats, or for that matter, apes, create a symphony or a great piece of art, then I might seriously consider the idea that humans are nothing more than a sophisticated version of the same thing.

Apes and rats are both capable of organizing thought and creativity, though to a lesser extent than humans. But that isn't particularly important; they are built of the same building blocks as we are, even to a very high level in that our brain cells and even overall brain structure are quite similar. Take an ape's brain and adjust the size of certain lobes here and there, and it becomes easy to see how the ape brain could develop into the human brain.

The whole idea of free will fits perfectly into us not having free will: time and time again humans think they are unique, special, and better, be it better than other species or better than their fellow humans. If there were free will, I think that a much greater percentage of the population would choose to find their self-worth in some way other than by comparing themselves to animals or other people.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

That's not at all what I'm saying, but I'll admit that I didn't explain myself thoroughly.

There's a famous argument for theism that says that, assuming we don't know whether or not God exists, we should act as if he did, because the punishment for being wrong if God does exist is worse than the punishment for being wrong if he doesn't. I don't believe this argument holds water because a) the chances of there being a God are next to nothing and b) there are negatives to being theist that this argument discludes.

It's called "Pascal's wager," and it's irrelevant to the question of free will.

However, in the case of free will and non-free will and how we should act, there really aren't any negatives to doing good if we have free will - you were going to do it all along. If you do have free will, you should do good because it's the right thing to do. So unless you can establish that free will is importantly related to something other than the way we should act, the argument is mildly interesting, but irrelevant.

Assuming no god, there are no negatives to doing bad, either.

Apes and rats are both capable of organizing thought and creativity, though to a lesser extent than humans. But that isn't particularly important; they are built of the same building blocks as we are, even to a very high level in that our brain cells and even overall brain structure are quite similar. Take an ape's brain and adjust the size of certain lobes here and there, and it becomes easy to see how the ape brain could develop into the human brain.

So what? Deal with the real, not the imaginary.

The whole idea of free will fits perfectly into us not having free will: time and time again humans think they are unique, special, and better, be it better than other species or better than their fellow humans. If there were free will, I think that a much greater percentage of the population would choose to find their self-worth in some way other than by comparing themselves to animals or other people.

Your ideal is called "egalitarianism." You sound like a PETA member comparing the slaughter of chickens to the slaughter of Jews: idealistic, but out of touch with reality and ignoring philosophical consequences.

 

[Imagist]

It's called "Pascal's wager," and it's irrelevant to the question of free will.

I had forgotten what it was called, thanks.

I only mentioned it to show that a similar argument could be applied to assumptions based on free will.

Assuming no god, there are no negatives to doing bad, either.

I'm viewing doing good for the sake of good as a positive. I guess there's no "punishment" per se, but there are definite negatives if everyone were to choose to do bad.

So what? Deal with the real, not the imaginary.

What I am saying is that the building blocks are all the same, and that humans differ only in the complexity of their configuration. The similarities between human and monkey brains are an example of the building blocks all being the same.

Your ideal is called "egalitarianism." You sound like a PETA member comparing the slaughter of chickens to the slaughter of Jews: idealistic, but out of touch with reality and ignoring philosophical consequences.

I'm not proposing that animals and humans be treated equally. There are real differences between humans and animals that warrant different treatment. What I am proposing is that humans have a tendency to exaggerate these differences and even imagine differences that don't exist in order to increase their own self-worth.

Examples of this are saying that animals don't have the ability to organize things or to make creative products. It's a comforting idea that we're unique because we can organize and create, but it's simply not true:

Asian Elephant Art & Conservation Project

There's your elephants painting. Sure, it's no Van Gogh, but as I said before, we differ in complexity of configuration, so naturally that leads to a difference in complexity of art.

 

[fantome profane]

Assuming no god, there are no negatives to doing bad, either.

Pure Utter Nonsense!

 

[crystalonyx]

I wouldn't choose to define free will in terms of choice. It seems to miss the mark, which for me is that free will is about us, being, here, now, enacting not just choice but everything we enact. It's about not being mindless, a part of the Machine of Destiny, but having the mind to be separate and distinct from the machine.

Some parts of this don't seem to make sense.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Pure Utter Nonsense!

Give me an example.

 

[Quiddity]

I can say "no" to anything. Irregardless of my enviroment or makeup.

So yes, I do believe in it.

Granted, unless I'm drugged up, have some kind of disorder, or sick in such a way that my use of reason is gone...free will definately exists.

 

[meogi]

Give me an example.

Society...

 

[Willamena]

Give me an example.

Of pure utter nonsense?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Of pure utter nonsense?

To:

However, in the case of free will and non-free will and how we should act, there really aren't any negatives to doing good if we have free will - you were going to do it all along. If you do have free will, you should do good because it's the right thing to do. So unless you can establish that free will is importantly related to something other than the way we should act, the argument is mildly interesting, but irrelevant.

I said

Assuming no god, there are no negatives to doing bad, either.

The response to that was

Pure Utter Nonsense!

I just want an example that shows me a negative to doing bad, assuming, of course, there is no God.

 

[Willamena]

How about theft? How is there no negative to theft?

 

[BucephalusBB]

"Assuming no god, there are no negatives to doing bad, either. " -> Pure nonsense

Give me an example.

Killing someone is bad.
asuming no God.
familymembers from killed person must live on without killed person.
Life is harder for familymembers. (in the past because they had a hunter less, nowadays because we miss them)

revenge! (now that can be pretty negative. We used to solve the revenges ourselves. Nowadays we use the police and law for it.)


Give me an example of something else wich we both see as bad and I'll give you an example of the negative effect it can have.

 

[BucephalusBB]

I can say "no" to anything. Irregardless of my enviroment or makeup.

So yes, I do believe in it.

Granted, unless I'm drugged up, have some kind of disorder, or sick in such a way that my use of reason is gone...free will definately exists.

I can say no to everything as well. What I can't though is know that all my no's were ment to be and that I would have never said yes anyway..