NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about this a lot. I just don't get it. How is free will possible? Can someone explain it to me? Please provide your definition of free will first.

Free will--assuming that you're talking about the ability to make personal decisions and a freedom from predestination--is possible in an atheistic or deistic universe. It's not possible in a christian universe, no matter what christians say. The assumption of a supreme being that is actively involved in human affairs presupposes a loss of will, even if it's slight.

Free will--assuming that you're talking about the ability to make personal decisions and a freedom from predestination--is possible in an atheistic or deistic universe. It's not possible in a christian universe, no matter what christians say. The assumption of a supreme being that is actively involved in human affairs presupposes a loss of will, even if it's slight.

Jump off the Boat with a Rope, kid. Hopefully when you crawl back up you'll realize a thing or two

Free will--assuming that you're talking about the ability to make personal decisions and a freedom from predestination--is possible in an atheistic or deistic universe. It's not possible in a christian universe, no matter what christians say. The assumption of a supreme being that is actively involved in human affairs presupposes a loss of will, even if it's slight.
Even if you are in an atheistic world, it is not possible to have free will. There is a causal chain of events that can not be ignored in any thought of world.

I've been thinking about this a lot. I just don't get it. How is free will possible? Can someone explain it to me? Please provide your definition of free will first.

Only way I could explain it to you would be that Free Will is defined as a Human's ability to whatever that Human Wanted to do. Nothing would stop that Human but other Humans involved. Free will is the use of ones Will Freely on the Face of the Earth.

Free will--assuming that you're talking about the ability to make personal decisions and a freedom from predestination--is possible in an atheistic or deistic universe. It's not possible in a christian universe, no matter what christians say. The assumption of a supreme being that is actively involved in human affairs presupposes a loss of will, even if it's slight.

Yes, that's basically what I am talking about. I agree that the existence of an omniscient being such as God provides the most convincing argument against free will. I am looking for someone to explain to me how/why free will is logically possible (you said it is, but forgot to say why).

Even if you are in an atheistic world, it is not possible to have free will. There is a causal chain of events that can not be ignored in any thought of world.

Yes, this is how I see it. I'm looking for people to refute that.

...by the Werner Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's a very complex idea involving quantum mechanics, but simply put... we can't predict the future.

Here's my free-will tinge to it. If the future is unpredictable, than we can not define it. If the future is undefined, than it has not been pre-determined. That seems to me like we define the future ourselves with our free wills. It will be interesting to see where science takes us with this idea.

I do so love being ignored on my opinions. Oh well, still half-way up that rope to the boat I am....I think....

Jump off the Boat with a Rope, kid. Hopefully when you crawl back up you'll realize a thing or two
To quote Bender the Wise: Bite my shiny metal ass. I'm no kid, and I've jumped off a number of boats in my time with no rope trailing after me.

...by the Werner Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's a very complex idea involving quantum mechanics, but simply put... we can't predict the future.

Here's my free-will tinge to it. If the future is unpredictable, than we can not define it. If the future is undefined, than it has not been pre-determined. That seems to me like we define the future ourselves with our free wills. It will be interesting to see where science takes us with this idea.

Yeah, I've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Yes, according to it, we can't predict the future, but that doesn't mean that there isn't predestination. Electrons will still be in certain locations, but we may never to be able to know which locations.

Only way I could explain it to you would be that Free Will is defined as a Human's ability to whatever that Human Wanted to do. Nothing would stop that Human but other Humans involved. Free will is the use of ones Will Freely on the Face of the Earth.

So free will to you is like freedom from the wills of others? I prefer to define it as the opposite of pre-destination/fate.

Free will is not possible unless someone can find a way to refute determinism. People have tried for years and it has always been unsuccessful.

I am actually writing a paper on ways to show free will. Basically it comes down to either ignoring logic (which was rules for arguing created by ancient Greeks) or by hoping that there is a third option that we can no understand yet.

...by the Werner Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's a very complex idea involving quantum mechanics, but simply put... we can't predict the future.

Here's my free-will tinge to it. If the future is unpredictable, than we can not define it. If the future is undefined, than it has not been pre-determined. That seems to me like we define the future ourselves with our free wills. It will be interesting to see where science takes us with this idea.

The future will always be unpredictable as nothing can be observed without being changed in some way. This doesn't affect the causal change they are talking about, however. It just means we are going through a movie. It is set already, but we have no way of knowing exactly how it will progress.

Yeah, I've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Yes, according to it, we can't predict the future, but that doesn't mean that there isn't predestination. Electrons will still be in certain locations, but we may never to be able to know which locations.

But if we can't tell that they are in those certain locations, then how can we prove that they are really that way?

I forget the exact process, but it is known that a certain radiation (gamma rays?) sometimes change into matter (and if i'm not mistaken, it's electrons) by a certain proportion, with the remaining amount determining the velocity at which that matter separates. So, electrons can pop in-and-out of existence. I should have paid more attention in class.

Also, science is suggesting that particles can be in two places at once. That's not science fiction. Some have predicted that we may have warping technology one day (probably not soon) even though unrestricted time travel is basically impossible.

Only way I could explain it to you would be that Free Will is defined as a Human's ability to whatever that Human Wanted to do. Nothing would stop that Human but other Humans involved. Free will is the use of ones Will Freely on the Face of the Earth.Actually the laws of physics (among others) preclude free will. If I want to levitate - I can't. If I want to walk up the wall - I can't. If I want to spend a year underwater and emerge alive - I can't.

Therefore I don't have free will.

Just my opinion :)

Free will is basically a fancy way of describing the biological potential to influence what we think. The fact that we dont choose the factors that limit/facilitate this potentiality, doesnt negate the potentiality itself. Because of our biology we are have the potential to assess our emotional/rational selves and to influence our emotional/rational selves intentionally.

But if we can't tell that they are in those certain locations, then how can we prove that they are really that way?

I forget the exact process, but it is known that a certain radiation (gamma rays?) sometimes change into matter (and if i'm not mistaken, it's electrons) by a certain proportion, with the remaining amount determining the velocity at which that matter separates. So, electrons can pop in-and-out of existence. I should have paid more attention in class.

Also, science is suggesting that particles can be in two places at once. That's not science fiction. Some have predicted that we may have warping technology one day (probably not soon) even though unrestricted time travel is basically impossible.

For there to be free will, or simply something other than predestination, i guess you could call it "random will," there has to be some source of randomness. This is something that I can't conceive. This is what I am hoping someone can explain.

For there to be free will, or simply something other than predestination, i guess you could call it "random will," there has to be some source of randomness. This is something that I can't conceive. This is what I am hoping someone can explain.
No, even if there is random events (like in indeterminism) there is no way anyone can actually choose anything. If it was a random event that you did something, could you say that you chose to?

I've been thinking about this a lot. I just don't get it. How is free will possible? Can someone explain it to me? Please provide your definition of free will first.


If you are a believer, thereis a free will cause God said so.Nothing to get ;)

If you are an atheist, like me, the definition of free will is different... and I think it is somehow an irrevelant question. Since our wills obey only to the laws of physics... since those laws does not have any 'will', you cannot be called a slave... You are somehow free like a river. The river follows a course obeying circonstancies(obstacles) gravity(physic laws) and its size, quantity of water the river is constitued of (properties of itself). Your will depends of circonstancies, electromagnetism, and the quantity/organisation of your neurons. Does it make you the slave of anyone? No, so somewhat, you can call it free will.

For there to be free will, or simply something other than predestination, i guess you could call it "random will," there has to be some source of randomness. This is something that I can't conceive. This is what I am hoping someone can explain.

I understand your thirst for order. The universe has way too much cosmic beauty to be random circumstance. Conservation of all momenta, etc... it's just so perfect. The normal explanation for it all is that the rules were set up so that the universe would flow smoothly. Something can happen now, and by the Butterfly Effect it could cause a great difference later, but the human mind can not understand that difference. I think we'd be reaching the limits of how much a brain can process.

... I have no idea where I'm going with this, but I'll just post it anyway.

[QUOTE=Rasputin the Thief
Since our wills obey only to the laws of physics... since those laws does not have any 'will', you cannot be called a slave... You are somehow free like a river. The river follows a course obeying circonstancies(obstacles) gravity(physic laws) and its size, quantity of water the river is constitued of (properties of itself). Your will depends of circonstancies, electromagnetism, and the quantity/organisation of your neurons. Does it make you the slave of anyone? No, so somewhat, you can call it free will.[/QUOTE]

But even the river is ultimately bound by (1) so-called laws of nature and (2) antecedant conditions. It seems to me the river is a 'slave.' Much like our own choices, we can conceive of an alternate course for the river, but only the course that *is* is realized. So, is either the river or a person non-slave or even free-willed in any sense? Despite the sense of alternatives in any given scenario, only one outcome actually occurs based on the conditions and laws of nature. If an earthquake causes a boulder to roll from the top of a hill, the laws of gravity and its pre-quake conditions determine where it will end up. It seems the boulder is a slave to laws and pre-existing conditions despite the lack of will for either gravity or the quake.

I'd like to be convinced we have free-will, but haven't been yet. It seems to me that we recognize alternative courses of action, etc. and that has us confused with making a choice. I'm not saying there is a plan. I see no evidence of that either.

But even the river is ultimately bound by (1) so-called laws of nature and (2) antecedant conditions. It seems to me the river is a 'slave.' Much like our own choices, we can conceive of an alternate course for the river, but only the course that *is* is realized. So, is either the river or a person non-slave or even free-willed in any sense? Despite the sense of alternatives in any given scenario, only one outcome actually occurs based on the conditions and laws of nature. If an earthquake causes a boulder to roll from the top of a hill, the laws of gravity and its pre-quake conditions determine where it will end up. It seems the boulder is a slave to laws and pre-existing conditions despite the lack of will for either gravity or the quake.

I'd like to be convinced we have free-will, but haven't been yet. It seems to me that we recognize alternative courses of action, etc. and that has us confused with making a choice. I'm not saying there is a plan. I see no evidence of that either.

If you have decided to define 'free will' as a contradictory concept, then obviously nothing can convince you that it exists. I think that we can assume when people use the term they are describing something that they conceive isnt ridiculous, such as the ability to live under water for a year 'at will'. It seems to me that what people are describing is the potential to intervene in our own perceptive process. No one I think is when using the term 'free will' suggesting that we can will ourselves to fly by flapping our arms, but rather that we can choose how to perceive this fact, and what level of attention to give it. Free will means we have the potential to influence our will, it doesnt mean that our will is always done.

I MUST have free will. Otherwise who is making me jump into all that mud?!? :eek:

If you have decided to define 'free will' as a contradictory concept, then obviously nothing can convince you that it exists. I think that we can assume when people use the term they are describing something that they conceive isnt ridiculous, such as the ability to live under water for a year 'at will'. It seems to me that what people are describing is the potential to intervene in our own perceptive process. No one I think is when using the term 'free will' suggesting that we can will ourselves to fly by flapping our arms, but rather that we can choose how to perceive this fact, and what level of attention to give it. Free will means we have the potential to influence our will, it doesnt mean that our will is always done.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm defining free will in the standard manner: being able to make our own choices (to act, not to act, etc) without external coercion. I agree, it is silly to think that free will entails some ability to 'breathe under water' or 'fly.' I certainly didn't mean it, or use it, in that sense. When I said that we are bound by antecedent conditions and the laws of nature, I meant that in all cases, we're bound what events prior to the moment of choice and the laws that govern those events and our options. Hence, being confronted with the option of crossing the street is determined by laws governing your motion, among others, and the prior chain of events leading to the moment of 'choice.' I think the ultimate choice (cross the street or not) is determined by laws and antecedents as well. As I said before, recognizing that something other than what occurred could have occurred tricks us into thinking we have a choice. Obviously, we don't know what is determined at any point until it occurs, but since it occurred, nothing else could have occurred given conditions and laws.

I disagree that "free will means we have the potential to influence our will." You can't have free will to will. That seems redundant. Either you have a will or you don't. You may either choose or have no choice. I don't think there are any partial choices. If you do, you have a will that is free from external coercion. If you are coerced, then you have no will of your own. If we can assume laws of nature are stable and antecedant events are causally related to their consequences, then the results of events are determined. Hence, we are not free.

Concerning pre-determinism:

I believe that this only works on the infinitessimally small level...

Sure, the conditions in one moment "determine" the conditions of the next moment, but the effect is only 100% solid (well, not even that... but awfully close, like 99.9repeating%), on an incredibly small scale...

And as that scale increases, the sheer complexity of the system means that the effect that one instance has on one down the road lessens... The further in time you get, the less effect is had...

For instance, one electron bouncing into another *will* send the other electron in a certain direction at a certain speed, all determined by the exact conditions of that collision... In this case, the result, for all intents and purposes, is pre-determined...

But, does that one collision dictate what will happen to some electron, 50 miles away, 30 years from that point? In a really small way, yes... But not in a great enough way to say that the intial collision is what "caused" this later effect...

There have been far too many variables in between that have all given their little chunk of influence for any of them to be seen as a "cause"... They're all the "cause"...

So in essence, every action is tied to every other action... However, the further you get apart, the less the influence of some actions become on others... There are too many other actions to factor in, all taking a slice of the causality pie...lol

This is reeking very highly of chaos theory, I suppose...

I guess one could still argue that even though point Z is caused by the cumulative efforts of points A-Y, that point Z was still "pre-determined" by those cumulated efforts of points A-Y... But when you look at point A, and point Z, you could never tell...

I think that "free will" can be defined as being able to alter your own "variable" at will, in-between points... From point A to point B, you've got little to no influence, but between A and Z, you've got much more influence...

But at any rate, the term "free will" when used by the majority only means that one has the ability to make decisions without a greater power guiding them... Essentially, in the Christian sense, it means that God said that he won't start meddling in your thoughts and actions... You're on your own...

Mmm... Causality Pie... *drools*

Since our wills obey only to the laws of physics... since those laws does not have any 'will', you cannot be called a slave... You are somehow free like a river. The river follows a course obeying circonstancies(obstacles) gravity(physic laws) and its size, quantity of water the river is constitued of (properties of itself). Your will depends of circonstancies, electromagnetism, and the quantity/organisation of your neurons. Does it make you the slave of anyone? No, so somewhat, you can call it free will.

But even the river is ultimately bound by (1) so-called laws of nature and (2) antecedant conditions. It seems to me the river is a 'slave.' Much like our own choices, we can conceive of an alternate course for the river, but only the course that *is* is realized. So, is either the river or a person non-slave or even free-willed in any sense? Despite the sense of alternatives in any given scenario, only one outcome actually occurs based on the conditions and laws of nature. If an earthquake causes a boulder to roll from the top of a hill, the laws of gravity and its pre-quake conditions determine where it will end up. It seems the boulder is a slave to laws and pre-existing conditions despite the lack of will for either gravity or the quake.

I'd like to be convinced we have free-will, but haven't been yet. It seems to me that we recognize alternative courses of action, etc. and that has us confused with making a choice. I'm not saying there is a plan. I see no evidence of that either.

You are paraphrasing me. What I say is exactly that - we have to obey the laws of nature. What I contest is the term slave, since we are not under another guy's will. We don't obey to someone who want us to do something. I just say that since there is no plan, we are not slave. I admit that in some sense we do not have free will, since the notion is invalid if you admit that the mind is material and energy.


EDIT: sorry, me = rasputin the thief. The moderators have a problem with me...

Wasn't it that film with the killer whale?

Wasn't it that film with the killer whale?
No. The whale had no choice on being free or not. It was a causal chain of events that chose for him.

Free will is a misconception, usually thrown out to make you feel better, and detractors usually hear something assenine like "Well then we can't be blamed for anything!" For which I quickly answer, "Forget blame. Punishment is to try and influence behavior, to cause you to avoid doing something stupid."

Free will sounds nice, but its illogical.

If everything in two universes is -exactly- the same, at one moment, they'll be the same for all moments. Its not that there's no choice, its that choice is entirely based on your biochemistry. It's caused. As such, if ALL factors are known, you could perfectly predict any being's actions (but that's such a huge if I doubt the species will survive long enough to pull it off).

If you think there's free will, you should go look up how easy it is to change someone's emotions by stimulating their brain.

No. The whale had no choice on being free or not. It was a causal chain of events that chose for him.
Bullshit! The damn whale knew what he was doing - he jumped over those rocks to save himself, because it was his choice! You could see the tears in his eye, for God's sake! Couldn't you see the tears?! Man, I wet myself watching that movie. And that was my choice too!

Free will does exist. It is however determined by your surroundings. The laws of nature,physics or your immediate surroundings either prohibits you or makes it possible. You have free will to decide wether you prefer to drink decaffienated coffee or regular coffee. At the same time you can decide in given circumstances how to react. Should your existence be threatened you have a choice to survive or not. The decision is yours. You could go to Irak and run the risk to lose your live or you could choose not to go.Both options have factors that would result from your choice. You could also be killed or get hurt without ever wishing for it. The choice was never yours, but still it happens.

Free will is therefore a relative issue. At times you can exercise free will and at other times its not possible.

Bullshit! The damn whale knew what he was doing - he jumped over those rocks to save himself, because it was his choice! You could see the tears in his eye, for God's sake! Couldn't you see the tears?! Man, I wet myself watching that movie. And that was my choice too!
Who decided to make the sequels though? I like to think that it was not my decision to watch those. I had no choice and I had to watch them.

Free will is a misconception, usually thrown out to make you feel better, and detractors usually hear something assenine like "Well then we can't be blamed for anything!" For which I quickly answer, "Forget blame. Punishment is to try and influence behavior, to cause you to avoid doing something stupid."

Free will sounds nice, but its illogical.

If everything in two universes is -exactly- the same, at one moment, they'll be the same for all moments. Its not that there's no choice, its that choice is entirely based on your biochemistry. It's caused. As such, if ALL factors are known, you could perfectly predict any being's actions (but that's such a huge if I doubt the species will survive long enough to pull it off).

If you think there's free will, you should go look up how easy it is to change someone's emotions by stimulating their brain.

Fortunately two things are (most likely) true.

First is that no two universes are ever exactly the same. In fact, under the circumstances, it's likely impossible. Second is that the number of factors both internal and external is so vast as to become immeasurable and thus immaterial.

Free will does exist. It is however determined by your surroundings. The laws of nature,physics or your immediate surroundings either prohibits you or makes it possible. You have free will to decide wether you prefer to drink decaffienated coffee or regular coffee. At the same time you can decide in given circumstances how to react. Should your existence be threatened you have a choice to survive or not. The decision is yours. You could go to Irak and run the risk to lose your live or you could choose not to go.Both options have factors that would result from your choice. You could also be killed or get hurt without ever wishing for it. The choice was never yours, but still it happens.

Free will is therefore a relative issue. At times you can exercise free will and at other times its not possible.
Ahh, but is it not past experiences that help you decide whether you prefer one thing or another?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm defining free will in the standard manner: being able to make our own choices (to act, not to act, etc) without external coercion. I agree, it is silly to think that free will entails some ability to 'breathe under water' or 'fly.' I certainly didn't mean it, or use it, in that sense. When I said that we are bound by antecedent conditions and the laws of nature, I meant that in all cases, we're bound what events prior to the moment of choice and the laws that govern those events and our options. Hence, being confronted with the option of crossing the street is determined by laws governing your motion, among others, and the prior chain of events leading to the moment of 'choice.' I think the ultimate choice (cross the street or not) is determined by laws and antecedents as well. As I said before, recognizing that something other than what occurred could have occurred tricks us into thinking we have a choice. Obviously, we don't know what is determined at any point until it occurs, but since it occurred, nothing else could have occurred given conditions and laws.

I disagree that "free will means we have the potential to influence our will." You can't have free will to will. That seems redundant. Either you have a will or you don't. You may either choose or have no choice. I don't think there are any partial choices. If you do, you have a will that is free from external coercion. If you are coerced, then you have no will of your own. If we can assume laws of nature are stable and antecedant events are causally related to their consequences, then the results of events are determined. Hence, we are not free.
I think you've been quite clear, so I'll re-phrase my point. When you suggest an absence of external coercion, you are merely replacing 'will yourself to fly by flapping your arms' with a less extreme example of the same argument. If you accept that free will doesnt mean what we know to be impossible as a matter of accepted good sense, ie if you reason that 'free will' doesnt contradict the fact that you cant be in more than one place and must travel through space according to physical rules to get to another place, if you conceive of free will as not positing what good sense tells us is not possible, then external coercion must be accounted for in the concept being posited. Antecedents, cause and effect, are obvious facts that most people accept without question, so it seems unlikely that they forget these facts when they talk about free will.

It seems to me that the thing people are referring to is the observable potential that human beings have to evaluate and influence their emotional/rationale selves. I really dont believe that free will is intended to refer to some impossible ability to suspend any of the normally accepted rules of cause and effect, but rather to refer to a human characteristic that is known to exist and can be described, even if not entirely understood.

Who decided to make the sequels though? I like to think that it was not my decision to watch those. I had no choice and I had to watch them.
What, were you tied down? You could have walked out any time you wanted! I'm sorry, but "You can't exercise Free Will" just doesn't cut it with me - if you didn't exercise him, how the hell would he have been able to jump over those rocks?! Huh?!

What, were you tied down? You could have walked out any time you wanted! I'm sorry, but "You can't exercise Free Will" just doesn't cut it with me - if you didn't exercise him, how the hell would he have been able to jump over those rocks?! Huh?!
He might have done track back in high school

I've been thinking about this a lot. I just don't get it. How is free will possible? Can someone explain it to me? Please provide your definition of free will first.

Free will is possible (ie you can do what you want)

Absolute free will is impossible without assuming divinity (ie you can't break the laws of causality unless there is divine will that can superseed basic laws of nature)

This means you CAN do anything you want, unless you try to exist outside time, shoot fire from you bare hands, or any number of things that you can't. You can also find it VERY hard to some of the things that you CAN do. For example, you can walk on air, but you'd have to find a way to do that; invent a regulated fan system that allows for normalized movment on a "floor of air" or something.

Thus your will is "free" and not bound by "fate", within the limits of your capability and the laws of nature. All these provisions are subject to change in the presence of a divinity, in which case all bets are off.

Free will is a misconception, usually thrown out to make you feel better, and detractors usually hear something assenine like "Well then we can't be blamed for anything!" For which I quickly answer, "Forget blame. Punishment is to try and influence behavior, to cause you to avoid doing something stupid."

Free will sounds nice, but its illogical.

If everything in two universes is -exactly- the same, at one moment, they'll be the same for all moments. Its not that there's no choice, its that choice is entirely based on your biochemistry. It's caused. As such, if ALL factors are known, you could perfectly predict any being's actions (but that's such a huge if I doubt the species will survive long enough to pull it off).

If you think there's free will, you should go look up how easy it is to change someone's emotions by stimulating their brain.



tthe only solution to have a free will with your definition is to have your brain functioning in an aleatory manner. I think free will exist, but the definition is more something like "we can decide what is just and what we want to do". The fact that we would always make the same decisions, given the same elements, is normal. We do not decide the elements we are given, neither does anyone - nature do not decide it. It just happens, it is caused by the laws of physics, but not decided by anyone. This is why it remains free will :-)

Free will is a misconception, usually thrown out to make you feel better, and detractors usually hear something assenine like "Well then we can't be blamed for anything!" For which I quickly answer, "Forget blame. Punishment is to try and influence behavior, to cause you to avoid doing something stupid."

Free will sounds nice, but its illogical.

If everything in two universes is -exactly- the same, at one moment, they'll be the same for all moments. Its not that there's no choice, its that choice is entirely based on your biochemistry. It's caused. As such, if ALL factors are known, you could perfectly predict any being's actions (but that's such a huge if I doubt the species will survive long enough to pull it off).

If you think there's free will, you should go look up how easy it is to change someone's emotions by stimulating their brain.

Aha! Chaos theory suggests that if you run the same event twice, with the same conditions, then you will get different outcomes each time!

Oh, yes.

Recommended related novel: The Proteus Operation.

As such, if ALL factors are known, you could perfectly predict any being's actions.

Quick correction - according to quantum physics, that's wrong.

You can't.

You can predict the probability of all possible actions. You cannot predict which one will be taken.

A photon hits a beam splitter in an interferometer; there are two paths it can take, either reflect or transmit. The probabilities are 50-50. There is no way to predict which one it will take, no matter how much knowledge about the photon and the beam splitter you have.

(Yes, that's f'ing wierd. Yes, there are still theorists that think that there are "hidden variables" that determine how a particle will act, which one of the equal-probability-paths it'll take. No, there's no evidence to suggest that those hidden variables exist, and even some to suggest that they can't.)

Who cares as long as we have the illusion of free will?

Who cares as long as we have the illusion of free will?
This is true. If we all believed we did not have free will (whether it is true or not) shit would hit the fan.

Who cares as long as we have the illusion of free will?
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't care. I just enjoy debating things I can't possibly know - there's much more scope for the darker corners of the imagination, and for flights of fancy.

Past experience can obviously influence free will. If you have burnt you finger once you hopefully learnt something from it. Different societies would react or exercise different choices due to cultural or other influences. It remains free will however, because in that particular individuals reality he still makes an internal choice that suits his cicumstances. Most individuals would exercise a variety of choices under the same circumstances until he or she is comfortable with their choices. Learned behaviour. It still remains free choice as is demonstrated by how different people choose to resolve issues.

Lyrics by a genius:

...she cried: you are an evil man,
and I paused a while to wonder;
if I have no free will, then how can I be
morally culpable?

Nick, from Murder Ballads


p.s. maybe a definition of 'will' is in order?

Free will is the ability to make choices as opposed to having those choices made for you.

If I get on a bus because I choose to get on the bus then I have free will. If I get on the bus because of a series of prior actions determined that I must now get on the bus, then I do not have free will.

The actions would appear the same (possibly even to the actor) but why you did what you did is the key.

Past experience can obviously influence free will. If you have burnt you finger once you hopefully learnt something from it. Different societies would react or exercise different choices due to cultural or other influences. It remains free will however, because in that particular individuals reality he still makes an internal choice that suits his cicumstances. Most individuals would exercise a variety of choices under the same circumstances until he or she is comfortable with their choices. Learned behaviour. It still remains free choice as is demonstrated by how different people choose to resolve issues.
I guess the question comes down to whether if two people were put in the exact same situation (each with perfectly identical backgrounds) would they always make the same decision or not.

Past experience can obviously influence free will. If you have burnt you finger once you hopefully learnt something from it. Different societies would react or exercise different choices due to cultural or other influences. It remains free will however, because in that particular individuals reality he still makes an internal choice that suits his cicumstances. Most individuals would exercise a variety of choices under the same circumstances until he or she is comfortable with their choices. Learned behaviour. It still remains free choice as is demonstrated by how different people choose to resolve issues.
To be fair, that no more suggests free will than the programming in a computer suggests the computer is alive. The memory is wired into the brain, so when the same set of variables appear, you alter your behaviour to improve the outcome. And different people are wired differently, just like different computers are programmed differently.

Of course, this argument doesn't rule out free will - I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't prove it either.

Aha! Chaos theory suggests that if you run the same event twice, with the same conditions, then you will get different outcomes each time!


Chaos theory's take on it, as I understand it, is slightly different than that of Quantum; basically, a chaotic system is one in which a small deviation in initial conditions results in a large change down the road.

A nonchaotic system is like throwing a ball. If you throw two balls, except one is thrown just a *slight* bit differently than the other, maybe .0001 m/s faster or .0001 degree to the right, the final conditions will also be only slightly different - the ball will wind up just a couple of centimeters further, or to the right. If the difference in initial conditions was imperceptible, so small as to be unmeasurable, then the final conditions will also be almost the same.

A chaotic system would be like shooting a ball in one of those convoluted pinball machines. You shoot one ball, it bounces around, ends up somewhere. You shoot a second one, but just *slightly* differently - even imperceptibly differently - and with each bounce off of whatever random bouncy things they put in pinball machines, this slight difference gets amplified and in a couple of seconds, the ball is following a completely different trajectory than the first one. Even though the differences in initial conditions could be so small as to be unmeasurable, the final situations can end up completely different.

That's not quite the same argument as quantum mechanics, which says that even if initial conditions are *exactly* the same, there can still be different effects.

Same overall conclusion though - nature can't be predicted exactly.

What you want is certainly not the same as what you can.

Thus, you always have free will, can want want you want, but not neccessarily get it.

So it would seem to the simple mind, like mine.

Logic basically points to there not being a possible way for free will to exist. However, there is one major problem with this: how can we hold anyone morally responsible?

Since I have read all of the theories and what is wrong with each of them, I have no other choice but to pray that free will is possible and we can not yet fathom why it does.

Logic basically points to there not being a possible way for free will to exist. However, there is one major problem with this: how can we hold anyone morally responsible?

Since I have read all of the theories and what is wrong with each of them, I have no other choice but to pray that free will is possible and we can not yet fathom why it does.
But free will can't exist. What else could explain Cliff Richard's success over the years?

Should you take identical twins from the same family the possibility is high that they would react the same. At the same time there would be cicumstances when they would react differently. Look at your own family and the differences in your siblings personality wise. Same family,upbringing,culture and language. Yet you could probably predict fairly accurately how each would react in given circumstances. One would possibly fight. The other might run away. Free will exercised by each individual because their reality differs or is relative to the reality of others.

Should you take identical twins from the same family the possibility is high that they would react the same. At the same time there would be cicumstances when they would react differently. Look at your own family and the differences in your siblings personality wise. Same family,upbringing,culture and language. Yet you could probably predict fairly accurately how each would react in given circumstances. One would possibly fight. The other might run away. Free will exercised by each individual because their reality differs or is relative to the reality of others.
Yes, but identical twins don't have identical past experiences, so that's not a reliable control.

Should you take identical twins from the same family the possibility is high that they would react the same. At the same time there would be cicumstances when they would react differently. Look at your own family and the differences in your siblings personality wise. Same family,upbringing,culture and language. Yet you could probably predict fairly accurately how each would react in given circumstances. One would possibly fight. The other might run away. Free will exercised by each individual because their reality differs or is relative to the reality of others.
I am not just talking about people of similar upbringings. I am talking about two people who each share every decision made. Every experience and event that one person had, the other person ahd to have the exact same thing. Basically, they are the same person. Then, would they make different decisions?

First off the definitions:

Free Will: The ability for an individual to deliberate and choose from multiple possible courses of action. Whilst Individuals are clearly not free to do the logically impossible, i.e fly, People have the freedom of action which allows them to choose whether or not they want to get on the bus.
An individual may choose to get on a bus as he wants to go to town, but equally he could choose to walk, or not go to town.

Determinism: All actions of an individual are predetermined. For example the fact that you get on the bus, is becuase that is what it is determined will happen. Determinism means individuals have no free will.

Randomness: Actions occuring for no reason. If all actions were random people have no free will, as they would not be able to chose any particular course of action.

Illusion of Free Will: The subjective experience of an individual who feels that he/she has deliberated about which course of action to take and has chosen one, whilst in reality all that has occured were a set of pretedermined events.

Materialism: The belief that the brain is the seat of conciousness, is constructed of purely physical materials, and is such bound by the laws of physics.

Laws of Physics: Principles describing interactions and forces acting on all particles that exist in the physical universe.

So

If you are a materialist, it seems clear that you are lead to the following conclusions:
A: The mind exists in a physical form: the brain.
B: All actions taken by an individual are due to complicated series of neuronal firings/interactions, the release of neurotransmitters etc which are follow causal laws.
C: As all actions in the brain follow the causal laws of physics, the sequence of neurons firing etc in the brain is bound by the laws of physics.
D: Nearly all actions at the level of the neuron will be predetermined, and in all other cases it will be following a random pathway (although following statistical patterns). Therefore we must conclude that at the neuronal level all actions are devoid of free will.
E: From These points we can reach the conclusion that free will does not exist.
F: This does not mean that everything is perfectyl determined - due to element of random diustribution that is inherent in the laws of physics, but it does preclude free will.

I think you've been quite clear, so I'll re-phrase my point. When you suggest an absence of external coercion, you are merely replacing 'will yourself to fly by flapping your arms' with a less extreme example of the same argument. If you accept that free will doesnt mean what we know to be impossible as a matter of accepted good sense, ie if you reason that 'free will' doesnt contradict the fact that you cant be in more than one place and must travel through space according to physical rules to get to another place, if you conceive of free will as not positing what good sense tells us is not possible, then external coercion must be accounted for in the concept being posited. Antecedents, cause and effect, are obvious facts that most people accept without question, so it seems unlikely that they forget these facts when they talk about free will.

It seems to me that the thing people are referring to is the observable potential that human beings have to evaluate and influence their emotional/rationale selves. I really dont believe that free will is intended to refer to some impossible ability to suspend any of the normally accepted rules of cause and effect, but rather to refer to a human characteristic that is known to exist and can be described, even if not entirely understood.


I agree that antecedants, cause and effect are fairly obvious in most cases, but it isn't unlikely that people forget them when they talk about free will. Rather, they're assumed to be irrrelevant to 'choices.' In short, I think the brain plays a large trick on us because it has evolved in sophistication to conceive of realities that don't exist. These realities are misidentified as alternates for what occurred, but are nonexistant realities nonetheless.

Your definition of free will deviates from the more common definition of the ability to choose without restraint of necessity (coercion=no choice), though I'll agree that evaluation and influence of self are part of the presumed choosing to act. However, what reason is there to think that the actions evaluation and self-influence is free from any prior causal chain or laws? I don't think there is. If those actions are bound by priors and laws, then the outcome (choice, action) must be too. To assume that you could make a choice at odds with those conditions assumes you could violate them.

If what you call the process of evaluation and self-influence are merely part of a causal chain governed by antecedants and laws that result in some outcome perceived as choice, you are definitely arguing that "free will is intended to refer to some impossible ability to suspend any of the normally accepted rules of cause and effect" because you're saying that all antecendants and laws prior to your choice are irrelevant. Cross the street or not, free will implies the choice is irrelevant to the priors of how you came to the point of choice. How can that be? How does recognizing the possibility of an alternative action equate to a person having a choice in any matter. You can only have "chosen" in the way that occurred since you didn't "choose" an alternative.

(Edited: Fixed some typos...probably didn't get them all...)

I agree that antecedants, cause and effect are fairly obvious in most cases, but it isn't unlikely that people forget them when they talk about free will. Rather, they're assumed to be irrrelevant to 'choices.' In short, I think the brain plays a large trick on us because it has evolved in sophistication to conceive of realities that don't exist. These realities are misidentified as alternates for what occurred, but are nonexistant realities nonetheless.

Your definition of free will deviates from the more common definition of the ability to choose without restraint of necessity (coercion=no choice), though I'll agree that evaluation and influence of self are part of the presumed choosing to act. However, what reason is there to think that the actions evaluation and self-influence is free from any prior causal chain or laws? I don't think there is. If those actions are bound by priors and laws, then the outcome (choice, action) must be too. To assume that you could make a choice at odds with those conditions assumes you could violate them.

If what you call the process of evaluation and self-influence are merely part of a causal chain governed by antecedants and laws that result in some outcome perceived as choice, you are definitely arguing that "free will is intended to refer to some impossible ability to suspend any of the normally accepted rules of cause and effect" because you're saying that all antecendants and laws prior to your choice are irrelevant. Cross the street or not, free will implies the choice is irrelevant to the priors of how you came to the point of choice. How can that be? How does recognizing the possibility of an alternative action equate to a person having a choice in any matter. You can only have "chosen" in the way that occurred since you didn't "choose" an alternative.

(Edited: Fixed some typos...probably didn't get them all...)
I dont agree that the common definition means to 'choose without restraint'. People tend to think of a human slave as possesing the trait 'free will' and a monkey as not. Free will does not normatively (so far as I can ascertain) refer to a status, but rather to a trait. Free will isnt describing the philosophical implications of 'choosing' or being 'predetermined' or 'limited' to crossing the street or not, but rather describes your ability to reflect on why you would cross the street, whether or not you like crossing the street, and even the why of whether or not you liked it, and further to have the potential to activity choose to feel differently about crossing the street. Free will describes our potential to be self aware and to take an intentional role in defining our self awareness. I say this because when people talk about free will they usually mean that which seperates us from animals, that which enables us to make choices and also to learn from our choices. So however inept the phrase may be, and however misunderstood the processes, functions and implications of it may be, I find it difficult to believe that when used normatively, most people are not referring to potentials inherent in human selfawareness.

I dont agree that the common definition means to 'choose without restraint'...So however inept the phrase may be, and however misunderstood the processes, functions and implications of it may be, I find it difficult to believe that when used normatively, most people are not referring to potentials inherent in human selfawareness.

Then it seems we're at an impasse because of irreconcilable definitions. I think Schmuffeldom provides a good definition:

"Free Will: The ability for an individual to deliberate and choose from multiple possible courses of action."

This is what I'm talking about. When I said "choose without restraint" I mean that the outcome was necessarily so, which is why I wrote "...without restraint of necessity." If you're coerced, whether that is because of the fact you're a slave or are whatever conditions you find yourself in, you have no "will", no choice because your action occured because it was necessarily so. Hence, you're restrained by necessity or coerced.

Self-awareness isn't an alternate definition for free will. You can be cognizant of many things, that doesn't imply you have a causal control over any events or actions. In fact, self-awareness may merely mean that you have the ability to provide a justification of the outcome of a causal chain after the fact. This doesn't imply control or exception from the chain of events or the laws governing those events. Justification or rationalizing appears to be largely independent. Rereading your post, there is in fact, nothing inherent in your statement that implies humans have any ability to make a choice at all...only the ability to be aware. If you can't choose, you can't have free will.

Again, I think a difference in defintion is our problem. What you're referring to isn't, as far as I can tell, free-will at all.

(Edited: Typos...getting tired...)

Free will isnt describing the philosophical implications of 'choosing' or being 'predetermined' or 'limited' to crossing the street or not, but rather describes your ability to reflect on why you would cross the street, whether or not you like crossing the street, and even the why of whether or not you liked it, and further to have the potential to activity choose to feel differently about crossing the street. Free will describes our potential to be self aware and to take an intentional role in defining our self awareness.

I thought some more. You're right, free will isn't a description of the implications of choosing, but is the question of whether or not we can even choose. I'm not sure we can, though I carry on as if i could. Is that a choice I make or a consequent of priors and laws? Even the self-awareness that you're writing about is bound up in the question of choice since if you can't choose among alternatives, then you have no role in defining your self awareness. The entire state of awareness and your role in it is merely an illusion brought about by various chemical reactions in your brain and body. You feel like you are aware and a participant even though you're a passive recipient of various consequences of natural law and prior conditions to now.

Then it seems we're at an impasse because of irreconcilable definitions. I think Schmuffeldom provides a good definition:
Actually we know exactly where and why our opinions diverge, rather than an impasse, that's further than most conversations get. ;)


Self-awareness isn't an alternate definition for free will. You can be cognizant of many things, that doesn't imply you have a causal control over any events or actions. In fact, self-awareness may merely mean that you have the ability to provide a justification of the outcome of a causal chain after the fact. This doesn't imply control or exception from the chain of events or the laws governing those events. Justification or rationalizing appears to be largely independent. Rereading your post, there is in fact, nothing inherent in your statement that implies humans have any ability to make a choice at all...only the ability to be aware. If you can't choose, you can't have free will.

Again, I think a difference in defintion is our problem. What you're referring to isn't, as far as I can tell, free-will at all.
I'm not positing self awareness as an alternative to free will, but rather referring to inherent human traits (integral to our self awareness) as appearing to be what is meant by the phrase 'free will'.

Free will is referred to as 'that which seperates man from beast' even in the context of a village serf vs a deer roaming free on the 'King's Estate', so clearly if the deer free of all social and legal constraint is considered to have 'no free will' while the constrained serf is despite the feudal system conceived as having the trait free will, free will doesnt appear to be about lack of physical constraint or lack of options from which to choose.

When people normatively use the term free will they must have mean something by it, we know that the term is not normatively applied to non-human organisms no matter how free from constraint, and yet applied even to humans who are prisoners. Does it make more sense to assume people mean and have always meant a status they knew was impossible (ie freedom regardless of normal cause-effect relationships), especially when such a usage contradicts the context in which the phrase can be normatively applied?

I reiterate that the phrase more likely means something that isnt inherently contradictory and obviously so as a matter of ordinary common sense. Why would great thinkers throughout history concieve of and ponder something that any child could tell them is just silly (ie that cause and effect can be dispended by the act of wishing)? Surely great philosophical minds have not intentionally wasted their energies wondering if thinking can make the earth turn the other way, or allow them to cross a street 5 miles away.

If free will normatively is meant to materially imply any suspension of ordinarly understood physical facts, it makes no sense that people would use the phrase outside of fairytales.

With Regards to my earlier description of the materialist view of the world:

Some philosphers have argued, that whilst the neurons themselves are bound by purely physical terms they are able to generate by a proccess often called super-emergence, the properties commonly associated with conciousness, and have used this as a means to defend free will. They are often asssociated with the idea of Qualia, which is a term relating to conciouss experience.

Breaking the laws of physics:
Some peoples response to the materialist view point is: But there may be laws of phsyics which we do not yet know.

However:
The Argument that I posited in my earlier thread, relies not on what the specific laws of nature are but rather on the logic underpinning them. Nay additional laws of nature may well make the process by which your brain acts increasingly more complicated but it will not affect the principle which is that the particles in your brain are still boiund by the laws of physics.

For free will to be able to arise from the laws of physics there would have to be a rule loosely framed thus: A particle may either follow the course of action as laid down by the rules of physics, or alternatively through the will of the individual in whom the particle exists it may chose an alternative course of action.

This idea contradicts the very nature of what we mean by the laws of phsyics, and would also seem to be self referential. If the will of the user is bound by the laws of physics then the particle will have no alternative course of action, and if the alternative course of action is what generates the will then we have a circular argument. Hence it seems unlikely that a law could be constructed which would allow free will, that would fit with the materialist view of the world.

The Soul:
A common non-materialist response is to posit some sort of dualist notion of the mind-brain problem. There exists some aspect of the mind which is not reducible to the brain. This non-physical aspect of conciousness is then capable of allowing free will, notable exponents of this view include descarte and leibniz.

However:
We are then faced with a serious problem, namely, how can an entity exists outside of the physical universe such as the soul have a causal effect within the physical universe? This seems to go against are understanding about the nature of cause and effect etc. And if part of the sould does exist in the universe, then clearly it seems that it too as well as the brain should be bound by the laws of cause and effect and thus its existence would do nothing to alter the question of free will.

On the Legal System

Of course these ideas are fundamental to the legal system in all countries.

If Individual A of there own free will stabs Individual B, then he/she may be held responsible for that action.

However: If on the other hand it was a purely determined action, in which no other course was possible then can we still ascribe guilt to individual A? If an action is not of your own making it seems that guilt loses its meaning. Equally if all acts occur at random then it seems hard to make sense of the idea of an individual being guilty for any event.

And Yet: If you follwo this logic to its natural conclusion however, it would seem that by a random/determined course of action, guilt will still be ascribed and the person punished, because this is the determined course of action or it has occured by chance.

If there is no free will does life make sense?
How do we square are common sense imorality that an an act is bad, even something as atrocious as the holocaust, with a belief that individuals lack free will?

For free will to be able to arise from the laws of physics there would have to be a rule loosely framed thus: A particle may either follow the course of action as laid down by the rules of physics, or alternatively through the will of the individual in whom the particle exists it may chose an alternative course of action.

This idea contradicts the very nature of what we mean by the laws of phsyics, and would also seem to be self referential. If the will of the user is bound by the laws of physics then the particle will have no alternative course of action, and if the alternative course of action is what generates the will then we have a circular argument. Hence it seems unlikely that a law could be constructed which would allow free will, that would fit with the materialist view of the world.

No your rule regarding free will only applies if by freedom you mean 'freedom to enact one's will, unqualified by even those physical facts that children are aware of'. I dont think most sane rational people who use the phrase 'free will' mean an ability to disband the normally assumed rules implicit in the relationship of cause and effect. Let me put it this way, does anyone here really think that people who say 'you have free will' mean 'you can enact your will simply by wishing it, regardless of any known or unknown physical fact/s'?

My Definition of Free Will is: The ability for an individual to deliberate and choose from multiple possible courses of action. Whilst Individuals are clearly not free to do the logically impossible, i.e fly, People have the freedom of action which allows them to choose whether or not they want to get on the bus.

Hence i am not saying that free will allows people to contradict physical laws by an act of will.

However:
If conciousness rests with the brain and if all components of the brain are bound by the laws of physics then individuals can not have free will as the the movements of all the atoms in their brain will form part of a complicated causal sequence. Hence as the movement and behaviour of the atoms is determined in a causal way so conciousness must be (for a materialist at least).

The point I was making in the post that you quoted, is that it seems very hard to suggest a rule which would fit with our ideas about free will, not of individual particles but of a person as a whole. It seems that you would have to suggest that the particles in the brain, which is the seat of conciousness, could some how act in multiple different ways and this leads us to conclude that they ould have to be able to step outside the normal causal sequence of events. This seems extremely improbabe.

These kinds of ideas have been discussed by a philosopher/scientist called Laplace, who said that if you knew all the rules of physics and the eact positions and properties of every particle you could predict there future paths. This is in essence a variation of my point. Hence free will can not exist, as the position of particles in your brain is caused by some other set of events, etc, etc ad infinitum.

Free will is not possible unless someone can find a way to refute determinism. People have tried for years and it has always been unsuccessful.

I am actually writing a paper on ways to show free will. Basically it comes down to either ignoring logic (which was rules for arguing created by ancient Greeks) or by hoping that there is a third option that we can no understand yet.

Try reading Prigogine's End of Certainty. I don't know that I would say that it refutes determinism, but the theory presented does throw doubt.

Even if you are in an atheistic world, it is not possible to have free will. There is a causal chain of events that can not be ignored in any thought of world.
The "causal chain of events" is something that we perceive in the world around us. The consciousness that preceives this exists on the threashold of the cause-and-effect phenomenon in a moment we call "now" or the present, a moment infinitely small in the span of time. Consciousness is not bound by the cause-and-effect phenomenon because the phenomenon is time-dependant, and consciousness is not.
(Just speculating.)

Logic basically points to there not being a possible way for free will to exist. However, there is one major problem with this: how can we hold anyone morally responsible?

Since I have read all of the theories and what is wrong with each of them, I have no other choice but to pray that free will is possible and we can not yet fathom why it does.

It doesn't need to be possible to hold people morally responsible. The illusion of free will still exists. We still don't know who will kill who. It is practical to assume that people have free will, even if they actually don't.

On the Legal System

Of course these ideas are fundamental to the legal system in all countries.

If Individual A of there own free will stabs Individual B, then he/she may be held responsible for that action.

However: If on the other hand it was a purely determined action, in which no other course was possible then can we still ascribe guilt to individual A? If an action is not of your own making it seems that guilt loses its meaning. Equally if all acts occur at random then it seems hard to make sense of the idea of an individual being guilty for any event.

And Yet: If you follwo this logic to its natural conclusion however, it would seem that by a random/determined course of action, guilt will still be ascribed and the person punished, because this is the determined course of action or it has occured by chance.

If there is no free will does life make sense?
How do we square are common sense imorality that an an act is bad, even something as atrocious as the holocaust, with a belief that individuals lack free will?

The holocaust was still "bad." Guilt can still be ascribed to the person who committed the act, not because it is truly there fault, but because it is practical. The world would not work if we assumed that murders and other guilty parties had no choice, and therefore should not be punished.

People here seem to mostly agree that free will does not exist. A few of the arguments for free will were refuted quickly, so I have yet to see a convincing argument for free will. Can anyone provide one?

It doesn't need to be possible to hold people morally responsible. The illusion of free will still exists. We still don't know who will kill who. It is practical to assume that people have free will, even if they actually don't.

Yeah, we do not need to have free will as long as we believe we have it. However, we some peolpe know they do not have the ability to do otherwise, a pessimistic nature will grow in them. Others might not become pessimistic if they follow a soft determinist route (still sterminism but allows for the agent to reason internally).

I like to think that maybe someone just has not discovered the real truth yet and free will might still exist. Even if it doesn't happen, at least I am being practical. :)

Free will is referred to as 'that which seperates man from beast' even in the context of a village serf vs a deer roaming free on the 'King's Estate', so clearly if the deer free of all social and legal constraint is considered to have 'no free will' while the constrained serf is despite the feudal system conceived as having the trait free will, free will doesnt appear to be about lack of physical constraint or lack of options from which to choose.

If free will (the ability to choose) exists, then there is no reason to think that animals do not have free will, is there? There is also no reason to think that liberty (free from social and/or legal constraint) or its absence has any bearing on free will per se, though I will agree that socio-cultural context is certainly an antecedant condition.

When people normatively use the term free will they must have mean something by it, we know that the term is not normatively applied to non-human organisms no matter how free from constraint, and yet applied even to humans who are prisoners. Does it make more sense to assume people mean and have always meant a status they knew was impossible (ie freedom regardless of normal cause-effect relationships), especially when such a usage contradicts the context in which the phrase can be normatively applied?

What reason is there to think people can't use a term to express an impossible status? If a person believes they can act outside of causality and laws of nature by making some choice other than what is actually caused to occur, then I would say they are meaning an impossible status. The fact that one can think of non-occurring alternatives in place of what actually occurred suggests a usage that contradicts the context. It doesn't make them any more real.

I reiterate that the phrase more likely means something that isnt inherently contradictory and obviously so as a matter of ordinary common sense.

Why? Many times common sense and/or conventional wisdom are wrong. What makes this case special that it might defy more reasoned approaches?

Why would great thinkers throughout history concieve of and ponder something that any child could tell them is just silly (ie that cause and effect can be dispended by the act of wishing)? Surely great philosophical minds have not intentionally wasted their energies wondering if thinking can make the earth turn the other way, or allow them to cross a street 5 miles away.

Why not? People waste time thinking about all kinds of things. The question, I think, isn't whether we can cause the external world to conform, but whether we can cause ourselves not to conform to what we've sense is a fairly causally bound universe. What is it that makes humans exempt from causality and the laws of nature at one level (choice) but not at other (gravity)? I don't think self-awareness is the answer because awareness is the result of laws of nature, process and cause & effect. It is bound to the initial problem of whether choice exists. No one, I would hope, thinks you can will the earth off of its axis, but inconceviably, many believe they are exempt from the reality they observe on a daily basis. Odd, if you ask me. I don't think we're exempt.

If free will normatively is meant to materially imply any suspension of ordinarly understood physical facts, it makes no sense that people would use the phrase outside of fairytales.

I agree. I would like for there to be free will. It just doesn't seem to me there is. I could be wrong, but I may not have a choice in being so.

I believe in free will for moral reasons. Without free will, I really don't see how you can hold someone responsible for murder, for example. Determinism also seems to make it too easy to justify oppression ("Why give them freedom if freedom doesn't exist").

I believe in free will for moral reasons. Without free will, I really don't see how you can hold someone responsible for murder, for example. Determinism also seems to make it too easy to justify oppression ("Why give them freedom if freedom doesn't exist").

Yeah, but if free will doesn't exist, you can only respond in a determine manner anyway. So, if you punish a murderer, it is only because you had no option. Likewise for not punishing. Thus, if you believe in free will and it doesn't exist, then when what you view as the morally proper response occurs, it is irrelevant since that is the only outcome that could have occurred. Works the same way with "immoral" outcomes. If free will doesn't exist, then your morality seems to be irrelevant to the whole process except that it is the only morality you could have had.

Liberty and free will aren't the same thing, I don't think. You can have free will but not be physically free.

Free will is an illusion.

Everything WILL happen a certain way. There is a course of events that will describe your future. I am not suggesting this is predestined, but you have a future, and it will happen a certain way. One could argue that this can be changed by free will; however, your entire cognitive ability to make decisions is created throughout your life. You are making a decision, but what determines the decision you will make lies in your morals, hopes, dreams etc. that have developed during your life. When you make a decision, you are not relying on free will, you are merely taking into account that which you have experienced in your life, and that option which allows you to live a better life prevails; however, there are obviously sometimes errors in judgment.

Yeah, but if free will doesn't exist, you can only respond in a determine manner anyway. So, if you punish a murderer, it is only because you had no option. Likewise for not punishing. Thus, if you believe in free will and it doesn't exist, then when what you view as the morally proper response occurs, it is irrelevant since that is the only outcome that could have occurred. Works the same way with "immoral" outcomes. If free will doesn't exist, then your morality seems to be irrelevant to the whole process except that it is the only morality you could have had.

True, but it allows people to get away with things like the Holocaust.

im a very practical person

all this science and philosophy just indicates to me that we dont understand free will

do YOU feel like you dont have free will? would it IMPROVE your life if you decided that free will doesnt exist? i feel that i do and that there would be no improvement if i assumed i didnt.

thats enough for me. its a good practical answer. as far as im concerned, YES there is free will.

now of course we are not UTTERLY free, we are bound by our past and our genetics. that makes us kind of 33% free. im 47, im never going to be a rock star if i wanted that i should have started it 25 years ago. i'm never going to write my name in the snow with a stream of urine coming from my own body (there may be women out there that nimble, im not one of them) i could however CHOOSE to try for both of those things even if they are impossible.

anyway its like that old story about how its impossible for a bumblebee to fly (ya ya i know they changed their minds and now it IS possibe). free will may be impossible on paper but ill be damned if i believe im not making constant decisions reflecting my own free will

Free will--assuming that you're talking about the ability to make personal decisions and a freedom from predestination--is possible in an atheistic or deistic universe. It's not possible in a christian universe, no matter what christians say. The assumption of a supreme being that is actively involved in human affairs presupposes a loss of will, even if it's slight.

But if the supreme being does not become actively involved unless you ask for it, there is no loss of will.

I only believe in a predetermination as a technicality based on this arguement:

The consequences of the present are results of actions of the past.
The consequences of the future are results of actions of the present.

We can not change the past.
Thus, we can not change the future.
-QED

Of course the logic of this is delicate. Such as you can do whatever you decide to do, because your decisions are just the results of experiences in your past.

I don't think there is free will in the conventional sense. An outcome will happen whether you like it or not. Example: Say you're chatting it up with Morpheus, and he offers you the red pill and the blue pill. Obviously you take the red pill. The action of you taking that pill means that you were going to take that pill the moment you walking in the room. Extending that logic backwards, you were going to take the red pill at the moment you were born, thus meaning no free will. You DO have an illusion of free will, in which you can weigh the alternatives and such, but whatever action you take was going to happen no matter what.

im a very practical person

all this science and philosophy just indicates to me that we dont understand free will

do YOU feel like you dont have free will? would it IMPROVE your life if you decided that free will doesnt exist? i feel that i do and that there would be no improvement if i assumed i didnt.

thats enough for me. its a good practical answer. as far as im concerned, YES there is free will.


This is pretty much why the myth persists. People don't care about truth so much as what makes them feels good. Same with a lot of things these days.

Ignorance is bliss. Meh.

Aha! Chaos theory suggests that if you run the same event twice, with the same conditions, then you will get different outcomes each time!

Oh, yes.

Recommended related novel: The Proteus Operation.

Chaos has neven been proven to exist. It mostly exists as a -magical- notion (hence why it factors in so many mythologies. And Fantasy Games.) Chaos theory is that the factors of anything are so numerous that you can't hope to consider all of them.

If you do the exact same test, in the exact same way, with the exact same conditions (which includes TIME as a condition, and having not done that test ever before), it will have the same result. Its just not physically possible to do something twice in the exact same way.

The "causal chain of events" is something that we perceive in the world around us. The consciousness that preceives this exists on the threashold of the cause-and-effect phenomenon in a moment we call "now" or the present, a moment infinitely small in the span of time. Consciousness is not bound by the cause-and-effect phenomenon because the phenomenon is time-dependant, and consciousness is not.
(Just speculating.)

Yes. Time is probably the key to figuring out if science can support free will. The physics of strict deterministic cause and effect (that which would preclude free will) calls for time to be fully symmetrical and reversible.

Free will doesnt contradict pre-determination. It doesnt contradict anything unless you choose to give it a fantastical definition. I dont think when someone says 'you have free will' they mean that you can re-order the universe by wishing it, or that you asked to have free will, or that free will is self exercising and equally well utilised in every organism that has the potential to exercise free will. 'The will is free' does not mean that the will supercedes the physical world that it is an effect of. The free refers to the fact that the will can intentionally intervene in it's own causes, ie that it has the potential to intervene and excercise intentional control on it's own creative process.