Well..... we are in control of the atoms and particles that make up us; just not all those other particles and atoms that are not us.
The brain is a part of us, we are in control of everything our brains do.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lets solve Free will once and for all!!
- Thread starter Nimos
- Start date
Yet you had to spend time on this tldr response to tell me you don't care to spend time responding. Funny, isn't it.
Using trigger words like "hostile" and "upset", as if you're stating facts instead of pulling things our of your ya know, doesn't change the fact that i asked you 3 times to state your case on free will. If you're afraid that's ok. People much better than you in ever aspect have been afraid of engaging with me.
A suggestion : don't fixate on the person. Stay on topic. A fixation with the person is the first sign of a failed intelligence. It goes downwards after that into funny tantrums. Maybe it is best i leave you to your nonsense.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
If humans evolved from a single-cell organism like everything else. Then we wouldn't look at this cell and think that it has free will. Not as time passes billions of years to modern humans and then we discuss that we have free will.
Somewhere along this evolutionary journey, we have gone from not having free will to believing/having free will. Where or at which point during evolution did we get it, does that make it more clear?
Im obviously not asking for a specific time stamp.
But merely that my understanding of free will, is either we have it or we don't, it's not like a scale where you have X% of free will. I might be wrong about it, but to me, that doesn't make any sense. But again at some point in our evolutionary development, we have gotten the idea that we have free will.
I disagree with your definition (the first part; dealing with fate). Ultimately, free will is the ability to make conscious decisions. You can also define it as the ability to make moral or ethical decisions (to be a moral agent). Under both definitions, we have free will.The time has come to settle whether we have free will or not
So had a somewhat interesting talk with ChatGPT about this, but can't help but feel that it has some restrictions or fallback safety mechanisms that limit it in regards to saying what is actually on its "mind". So thought I would raise the discussion here instead with my human brethren
There are several questions here:
1. Where does free will come from?
2. Do we have it?
Definition:
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Let's assume we have free will or at least limited, given that we are bound by certain biological constraints, such as eating, sleeping etc. Let's go back in time and ask the question when did free will cease to exist?
Let's assume that it did somewhere with early humans, then the question is where did they get it from?
To me free will seems like a binary condition, either you have it, or you don't (ignoring biological constraints). The reason for this is that if we go back 10.000 years, I don't think humans back then had less free will than we do and the same if we go forward 10.000 years, humans in the future don't have more than we do.
How we can make use of our free will seems only limited by our knowledge. We can't travel to distant stars, because we lack the ability or understanding of how to do this, yet we are aware of the concept. Early humans probably weren't aware of such things, but I don't think that restricts their free will, their concepts of things they thought about were simply different than ours.
It seems strange to me how free will could evolve without also making an argument that early humans somehow only had part free will, which seems extremely weird to me. Im not even sure what an example of part-free will would be like.
To me, there are three options at least that I can come up with:
1. We don't have free will, it is merely an illusion
2. It spontaneously came into existence
3. Our definition of free will is incorrect.
If anyone else has other options I would be interested in hearing them?
One of the arguments for how we have free will is that we can still act upon our desires and intentions, yet if the Universe is determined by physical laws, particles, atoms whatever, and these make up everything like how planets form, how the Universe function, then it seems rather unlikely that human desires and intentions isn't also govern by these as we are also part of it. At least an argument for why these are beyond or not influenced by the very same rules that everything else seems to be would be interesting to hear.
That free will spontaneously came into existence seems very unlikely to me.
Could it be, that the human brain simply evolved far enough for us to be able to comprehend the illusion of free will? Said in another way, we reached the point of the brain being able to fool itself?
(Im not interested in hearing that God did it. He could do anything
Especially where do you think free will came from?
Are there ways you could see free will evolve? And could that potentially mean that humans in the future have more or less free will than we do?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
That is a good question. But is that different from when we say something like "Dammit i'm hungry, now im going to get something to eat". For the most part, we go eat, because we are hungry/just want a snack etc., not because we decided to be hungry.
So even if we have free will, there are biological influences that control us. Is that different from thinking "I really want to go to Africa and not Sweden", the idea might seem ridiculous or completely different from that of being hungry, but all of it happens within our body.
As a thought experiment, if we can predict atoms, why shouldn't we be able to predict atoms that make up our brains?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
But we know what a lot of things are, without having themMe thinks, if we know what free-will is, then we have it.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
That is the question. As I wrote to someone else just now, if we can predict atoms and our brain is made of atoms, why couldn't we in theory also predict them?
Yes, but the brain is made up of atoms that follow rules.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I don't know what else to call comments like those then?
I have no clue whether we have free will or not, I simply asked some questions about it and my thoughts regarding it.
It depends on whether my understanding of it and the questions are valid, which is why I wanted to hear what others think. And I actually thought your first reply was interesting (despite a bit of nonsense) since I still have no clue what boring free will processes are supposed to be. But then again, maybe you had an explanation for it, that would make sense with clarification. But you didn't care to offer this and instead started with the whole "you play games on me" or what on Earth these comments were supposed to mean.
Im not rude to anyone or take a **** on them and neither did I do that to you, simply read my replies to you. But eventually, I get tired of comments like those you make, because it is wasting my time and offers nothing to the thread.
"A suggestion : don't fixate on the person. Stay on topic. A fixation with the person is the first sign of a failed intelligence."
And you even managed to try to give me a lecture about how to focus on the topic while you managed to insult me in the very same sentence. That is impressive.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
Apart from not knowing the histories of all those atoms and the impossibility of untangling the inextricable web of interconnections between the something like 10^26 atoms that make up the human brain, I suppose in principle we could. I guess what I am saying is that is the universe might be deterministic, but it is not determinable. Perhaps that is what we really perceive as 'free will' - not indeterminacy by indeterminability...either way, it doesn't emerge by magic only above a certain level of holistic reality...if we can't determine the brain's future, we can't determine the futures of the atoms that comprise the brain either.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I didn't come up with the definition, I just took it from Google.
This is another one:
1. : voluntary choice or decision. I do this of my own free will. 2. : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.
But you can make free will decision that has no moral or ethical implications, so these have to be covered by it as well.
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Agree, assuming we could calculate all atoms is probably not realistic
But wouldn't that be irrelevant, in regards to this? Obviously, we are talking on a theoretical level here.
Meaning whether we could calculate it or not, the issue would still be the same. That if it is deterministic we are on a railroad track as in the article and free will is an illusion.
The question then becomes whether we care, I guess. If we can't tell the difference anyway?
Another thought is also that maybe it is not necessary to calculate each atom, we simply need patterns or enough information to make the predictions. We don't calculate each atom for a planet's orbit either to predict it. The brain might simply be slightly more complicated at the moment.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
We can’t predict atoms. The laws that sub atomic particles follow are probabilistic, not deterministic.
Furthermore, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle infers in principal that neither a Laplace Demon Laplace's demon - Wikipedia
nor a hypothetical super-computer can apprehend all the information about a system, which it would need to do in order to make absolute predictions about the future.
In short, the future isn’t written yet.
What can i say.Again, how someone feels during an exchange is their problem. If thier feelings are distorted then every word may become an insult. Even if there was none intended.
Yes, so the word processes threw you off. There are reasons why i used that word and yes i can clarify. However after this rather disappointing exchange i am not feeling up to it at this moment. Maybe another time if you don't mind.
But since you've expressed a willingness to listen it won't be fair if i completely refuse to share something more on your topic. I am not sure how familiar you're with the various sciences but determinism is almost accepted as a gospel truth, isn't it? Even if we were to discard every science but you will still have to live everyday with biology and psychology, right? What does a study of those two show? No free will.
Let's look at a very simple example. To some degree (god willing
if everything works as they should) you can use your will in the usage of your arms to do some boring routine lifting, however, you cannot will yourself the strength of a gorilla, or the bite force of an alligator. So your will can only give you limited strength and not what you would want, even if your life depended on it. Another example, you have the free will to use or not use a toothbrush but you can't will a fallen tooth to grow back. These are some simple example but you can scale/stretch it across other aspects of human life. Hope this contributes to your question.@Nimos
Another thing you might want to consider is the relationship between thought and action. Although in real time they work very fast, the natural sequence is, thought precedes and determines the action. The problem is thought/thinking is influenced by biology and psychology, which are in turn marinated by the effects of psychological time in the form of various kinds of memories. So how you are going to act in this moment will depend on how you are "feeling"now or how you had felt 50 years ago. Perhaps you get an idea how complex these processes are.
Another thing you might want to consider is the relationship between thought and action. Although in real time they work very fast, the natural sequence is, thought precedes and determines the action. The problem is thought/thinking is influenced by biology and psychology, which are in turn marinated by the effects of psychological time in the form of various kinds of memories. So how you are going to act in this moment will depend on how you are "feeling"
now or how you had felt 50 years ago. Perhaps you get an idea how complex these processes are.
Augustus
…
For me, it makes sense to assume we have free will regardless.
If we are wrong, then there is nothing we can do because we have no free will and so we have no ability to think anything differently. There is no downside as we never made the choice to begin with.
If we do indeed have free will, but assume we do not, then we are wrong in a manner that may be harmful.
Whether we actually have a degree of free will or it's simply that our brain tricks us into thinking this, people still act as if they have a degree of agency, even those who nominally claim to believe the universe is deterministic. People who don't believe in free will still get annoyed at ignorance, rudeness, arrogance, violence or whatever behaviours they personally dislike. This is either because they judge the person could have done otherwise or because they had no other choice other than to get annoyed. The result is identical though.
For that reason I've never really found it a particularly interesting question worthy of much deeper contemplation as it seems somewhat pointless (or maybe I was always predestined to not find it a particularly interesting question )
If we are wrong, then there is nothing we can do because we have no free will and so we have no ability to think anything differently. There is no downside as we never made the choice to begin with.
If we do indeed have free will, but assume we do not, then we are wrong in a manner that may be harmful.
Whether we actually have a degree of free will or it's simply that our brain tricks us into thinking this, people still act as if they have a degree of agency, even those who nominally claim to believe the universe is deterministic. People who don't believe in free will still get annoyed at ignorance, rudeness, arrogance, violence or whatever behaviours they personally dislike. This is either because they judge the person could have done otherwise or because they had no other choice other than to get annoyed. The result is identical though.
For that reason I've never really found it a particularly interesting question worthy of much deeper contemplation as it seems somewhat pointless (or maybe I was always predestined to not find it a particularly interesting question
)I just want to quickly touch on your post because of my own ethical responsibility. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it, it seems one is considered as someone whose thoughts on things are taken seriously by some. This puts me in a situation where i have to be careful of what i say. Wouldn't want to add to the "harm"already being caused by many.For me, it makes sense to assume we have free will regardless.
If we are wrong, then there is nothing we can do because we have no free will and so we have no ability to think anything differently. There is no downside as we never made the choice to begin with.
If we do indeed have free will, but assume we do not, then we are wrong in a manner that may be harmful.
Whether we actually have a degree of free will or it's simply that our brain tricks us into thinking this, people still act as if they have a degree of agency, even those who nominally claim to believe the universe is deterministic. People who don't believe in free will still get annoyed at ignorance, rudeness, arrogance, violence or whatever behaviours they personally dislike. This is either because they judge the person could have done otherwise or because they had no other choice other than to get annoyed. The result is identical though.
For that reason I've never really found it a particularly interesting question worthy of much deeper contemplation as it seems somewhat pointless (or maybe I was always predestined to not find it a particularly interesting question
I will first like to point out that the sense of agency is different than will. Will is simply one component out of many that go to make the sense of agency. So we cannot conflate the two or use them as synonyms.
Second, regardless if we have free will or not it is not a free pass for lack of personal accountability. Our study of will clearly points to the possibility of being free from the burdens of determinism, to the degree one understands the burdens of determinism. If anything a proper study of the will will generate a sense of urgency towards a freedom from a mechanical way of life. If one doesn't hold themselves personally accountable for their actions then they are perpetuating what may be considered as "evil" (in the correct sense of that word)
Let this post be an example of how subtle, delicate, and trying this balance can be. Even though i absolutely detest making a direct reply like this but i am forced to, because of a sense of ethical accountability, lest my posts be misconstrued as advocating a free pass to self accountability. Thank you for your post and yes there is no need for a response,
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
For me, it makes sense to assume we have free will regardless.
If we are wrong, then there is nothing we can do because we have no free will and so we have no ability to think anything differently. There is no downside as we never made the choice to begin with.
If we do indeed have free will, but assume we do not, then we are wrong in a manner that may be harmful.
Whether we actually have a degree of free will or it's simply that our brain tricks us into thinking this, people still act as if they have a degree of agency, even those who nominally claim to believe the universe is deterministic. People who don't believe in free will still get annoyed at ignorance, rudeness, arrogance, violence or whatever behaviours they personally dislike. This is either because they judge the person could have done otherwise or because they had no other choice other than to get annoyed. The result is identical though.
For that reason I've never really found it a particularly interesting question worthy of much deeper contemplation as it seems somewhat pointless (or maybe I was always predestined to not find it a particularly interesting question
I think we should all decide for themselves, whether or not we have free will. Except, if the super-determinists are right, we can’t.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
My knowledge of this is limited, I'll admit that
But from what I understand, there are different views on this. You probably didn't see the article I posted to someone earlier, so I would like to hear your opinion about it as well.
(From Nature 19.dec 2023):
But there is a deeper reason why the quantum Universe might be more deterministic, to which Hartle’s scientific legacies are relevant. With US physicist Murray Gell-Mann, Hartle developed an influential approach to quantum theory, called decoherent histories1. This attempted to explain the usefulness of probabilistic statements in quantum physics, and the emergence of a familiar, classical realm of everyday experience from quantum superpositions. In their picture, the wavefunction never randomly jumps. Instead, it always obeys a deterministic law given by Schrödinger’s equation, which characterizes the smooth and continuous evolution of quantum states. In this respect, it is similar to US physicist Hugh Everett III’s popular ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics, which proposes that the quantum Universe splits into different branches according to the possibilities encoded in the wavefunction whenever anything is measured2. In what follows I assume, as Everett did, that the Universe can be completely described by a quantum wavefunction with no ‘hidden’ variables that operate on a more fundamental level....
...So how deterministic is the Universe? The answer will depend on the final theory that bridges the divide between quantum physics and relativity — and that remains a far-off prospect. But if Hartle is right, the story of the rise and fall of determinism until now might be the reverse of the conventional tale. From a certain perspective, the quantum Universe is more deterministic than a classical one, providing stronger explanations and better predictions. That has consequences for humans, too, because that makes it harder to appeal to quantum theory to defend free will11. If the quantum Universe is strongly deterministic, then there is no other path to make the Universe than the way it is. The ultimate laws of the quantum cosmos might tell us why it is this one.
Source
Does quantum theory imply the entire Universe is preordained?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
We don't know, though significantly, it seems we're not able to make ourselves know, even if we want to. Make of that what you will.The time has come to settle whether we have free will or not
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Don't worry I hold no grudges.
This is where the issue seems to be because there are two sides to this.
Again from the article I have linked in other thread (above):
The wavefunction, when measured, randomly jumps to one of the two states, and quantum mechanics specifies only the probability of either possibility occurring. One consequence of the arrival of quantum mechanics was that it seemed to throw determinism out of the window.
But then you have the other side, which doesn't agree. (Look in above thread, and the link).
But this is what I refer to as biological constraints, which we have to accept is there and is beyond that of free will. Meaning that free will in its definition doesn't mean defying natural laws, but being free to make choices within its limits. Furthermore, not having the strength of a gorilla isn't the same as for instance being hungry. Where we as humans are influenced by biological rules that can cause us to do certain things, like getting something to eat or go to sleep, whereas having the strength of a gorilla seems more like wishful thinking which isn't really part of free will.Let's look at a very simple example. To some degree (god willing
This is true.Another thing you might want to consider is the relationship between thought and action. Although in real time they work very fast, the natural sequence is, thought precedes and determines the action. The problem is thought/thinking is influenced by biology and psychology, which are in turn marinated by the effects of psychological time in the form of various kinds of memories. So how you are going to act in this moment will depend on how you are "feeling"
I don't think humans do anything which didn't have a former cause/influence. But I think one could maybe make the argument that even if that is the case. We are influenced by several things at the same time, which we have to process in our minds and assign importance to for lack of a better explanation.
For instance, you being hungry, doesn't mean that you instantly go get something to eat, you might choose to do it later, once the movie is over or whatever. A lot of things can influence why you would choose to wait rather than do it instantly, so maybe that is what free will is? the ability to suppress influences and assign weight to how important they are.
Which obviously might sound a bit weird