NationStates Jolt Archive

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

There is no such thing as free will.

Nah.

There's just things that happen.

Shit happens.

Where's that picture of "NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN" at?

:headbang:

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

Now back this shit up.

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

Bah, rubbish. Lack of free will implies that my life is being controlled by some higher being. Which, it isn't. I can make the choice to have a chocolate milkshake or a strawberry milkshake. Something as small as that is free will. I have the right to answer "yes" or "no" to a question. That is free will. My decisions do have a bearing on my future life, but I can still tackle decisions that come with those consequences.

Anyway, didn't we already have a thread on this?

Anyway, didn't we already have a thread on this?

Yes.

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

Casuation doesn't imply fate. It is silly to say that just because my choices are influenced by variables, that I have no choice.

Yes.

Yeah, I agree with you. Where IS that picture?

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

Read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. It makes a very good argument for compatabilism, the belief that determinism and free will can exist.

Also, the brain has the power to consciously veto its own actions before they happen. That's a pretty clear proof of free will, even if it is shaped by previous experiences. Free will does exist, but it is shaped by other factors.

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

It's not? PHEW! I thought I was going to be held accountable for every action that I took.

the belief that we have no free will is particularly useless. do you really behave as if your life is not your own to live? do you really feel that you are the puppet of the universe whose every move is forced on you?

why do anything, try anything, why learn anything, why go out of your way to accomplish anything if its all preplanned that you WONT anyway?

Bah, rubbish. Lack of free will implies that my life is being controlled by some higher being. Which, it isn't. I can make the choice to have a chocolate milkshake or a strawberry milkshake. Something as small as that is free will. I have the right to answer "yes" or "no" to a question. That is free will. My decisions do have a bearing on my future life, but I can still tackle decisions that come with those consequences.

Anyway, didn't we already have a thread on this?

First, I apologise. I'm new here. If this topic is 'old', I'm sorry.

Right. So why do you choose the chocolate or strawberry milkshake? Determined by your senses: by taste. You prefer the strawberry or the chocolate. That is not a choice per se, but an action based upon your 'self'. That which makes up your 'self'. You have the 'right' to answer yes or no, but your reply is determined by your opinions...which are shaped by your experiences, by your genetic make-up. If you chose to, deliberately, subvert your own faculties etc. (i.e lie), then surely that also would be a product of your inclinations? Even if you try to impose different and unusual decisions upon yourself, that is a choice dictated as much by your ‘self’ as any other.

It's not? PHEW! I thought I was going to be held accountable for every action that I took.

*stabs*

What? I didn't want to do it, it wasn't my fault.

Stupid determinism....always getting in my way.

'Lack of free will implies that my life is being controlled by some higher being.'

Not at all, I am an atheist. It implies that your actions are predetermined by your experiences et al. That's not an unreasonable presumption. Indeed, it is true.

*stabs*

What? I didn't want to do it, it wasn't my fault.

Stupid determinism....always getting in my way.

Thank you for the assist.

Read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. It makes a very good argument for compatabilism, the belief that determinism and free will can exist.

Also, the brain has the power to consciously veto its own actions before they happen. That's a pretty clear proof of free will, even if it is shaped by previous experiences. Free will does exist, but it is shaped by other factors.

Read it. Do not find there to be much validity in compatibilism. It's not 'free will', even if it is a decision based upon external factors. It's a part of a wider argument; that you cannot separate your thoughts and actions from your experiences. Time moves in a cyclical, rather than linear fashion. You are influenced by your surroundings, in turn influence your decision...the brain might only veto when it's a 'stupid idea'; that's surely based upon experience. All I am saying is that everything, no matter how extensively, is predetermined.

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

If you are free from the oppression of other human beings, is that not a meaningful sort of freedom? Is it really necessary to have contra-causal free will in addition?

*stabs*

What? I didn't want to do it, it wasn't my fault.

Stupid determinism....always getting in my way.
i think that it was technically Vandal-Unknown as got in the way there. Stabbings don't kill people, people walking into the knife kills people. Which, since it is an expression of relativity, means it was not possibly your fault.

*sits down after masterful defense*

Also a thread similar to this by involving God is going on right now....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523059

i think that it was technically Vandal-Unknown as got in the way there. Stabbings don't kill people, people walking into the knife kills people. Which, since it is an expression of relativity, means it was not possibly your fault.

*sits down after masterful defense*

Oh my God you're right!!! :eek:

*continues stabbing*

i think that it was technically Vandal-Unknown as got in the way there. Stabbings don't kill people, people walking into the knife kills people. Which, since it is an expression of relativity, means it was not possibly your fault.

*sits down after masterful defense*

Stabbing implies that the weilder of the knife is contracting muscles in the joints to apply force in the hand and therefore the knife to put pressure from a small sharp juncture at the tip of the knife into the clothing, and then into the skin for whatever reason the weilder may come up with.

People walking into knives, however, implies accident, whereas stabbing implies purposeful action.

Also, it is simply knives passing the flesh of the person and damaging their organs or causing enough bleeding for them to die. Whether it is stabbing or walking into, either way, they die.

However, stabbing is what Vandal said. So it was purposeful.

Oh my God you're right!!! :eek:

*continues stabbing*

You should've went with "sending 6 million Jews into gas chambers",... it has more impact.

First, I apologise. I'm new here. If this topic is 'old', I'm sorry.

Right. So why do you choose the chocolate or strawberry milkshake? Determined by your senses: by taste. You prefer the strawberry or the chocolate. That is not a choice per se, but an action based upon your 'self'. That which makes up your 'self'. You have the 'right' to answer yes or no, but your reply is determined by your opinions...which are shaped by your experiences, by your genetic make-up. If you chose to, deliberately, subvert your own faculties etc. (i.e lie), then surely that also would be a product of your inclinations? Even if you try to impose different and unusual decisions upon yourself, that is a choice dictated as much by your ‘self’ as any other.

I’m familiar with compatibilism, and the ‘recommended’ book. I do not find much stock in either. I’m making reference to ‘free will’ in very strict terms. Each action is determined by experience et al. Even the smallest. The brain might only veto because it has –learned- that a certain action is stupid.

'Free will' is a necessary illusion; but it is nothing more. It is not real.

Stabbing implies that the weilder of the knife is contracting muscles in the joints to apply force in the hand and therefore the knife to put pressure from a small sharp juncture at the tip of the knife into the clothing, and then into the skin for whatever reason the weilder may come up with.

People walking into knives, however, implies accident, whereas stabbing implies purposeful action.

Also, it is simply knives passing the flesh of the person and damaging their organs or causing enough bleeding for them to die. Whether it is stabbing or walking into, either way, they die.

However, stabbing is what Vandal said. So it was purposeful.
one can stab the air as well as play air guitar. the pantomime does not purposeful action make.

You should've went with "sending 6 million Jews into gas chambers",... it has more impact.
quiet you, you've been stabbed.

You should've went with "sending 6 million Jews into gas chambers",... it has more impact.

Meh. I think that sharp objects on average have killed more people in history than gas chambers.

*stabs for ignorance* :p

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic.

The best polls are...

Free Will=Plausible

The best polls are...

Free Will=Plausible
one option only? me likey... me likey very much.

So I'm the only one who read the thread title as this, eh?

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00004CP0D.03._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

How sad. :(

Casuation doesn't imply fate. It is silly to say that just because my choices are influenced by variables, that I have no choice.

QFT

So I'm the only one who read the thread title as this, eh?

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00004CP0D.03._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

How sad. :(

i was thinking it had to do with the other kind of Will

So I'm the only one who read the thread title as this, eh?

[IMG/]

How sad. :(Why would anyone? That's a movie most people would rather choose to eliminate from their memories.

Causation doesn't imply fate. It is silly to say that just because my choices are influenced by variables, that I have no choice.Yep. Although some lesser minds may indeed be completely predestined by their environment...

Bah, rubbish. Lack of free will implies that my life is being controlled by some higher being. Which, it isn't. I can make the choice to have a chocolate milkshake or a strawberry milkshake. Something as small as that is free will. I have the right to answer "yes" or "no" to a question. That is free will. My decisions do have a bearing on my future life, but I can still tackle decisions that come with those consequences.

Anyway, didn't we already have a thread on this?

true, but you cant make the choice of no breathing and yet live to 99 years old at the age of 12.:p

or the choice to fly....

there are rules/rools thats efect ur actions, think of life like a video game.


(sorry about the p00r spelling)

Yep. Although some lesser minds may indeed be completely predestined by their environment...


On the contrary, causation -does-. You might have -more- choice, but essentially this is not a 'free' decision. It's not -just- environment, it's also genetics...nurture etc.

Argh- didn't show my original posts on the thread

When you get a pop-up message that says your posts won't appear until they are approved by a Moderator (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511850) ... READ IT. Don't keep posting the same thing over and over again in hopes of outwitting the system.

On the contrary, causation -does-. You might have -more- choice, but essentially this is not a 'free' decision. It's not -just- environment, it's also genetics...nurture etc.

That -just- makes no sense.

First, I apologise. I'm new here. If this topic is 'old', I'm sorry.

Right. So why do you choose the chocolate or strawberry milkshake? Determined by your senses: by taste. You prefer the strawberry or the chocolate. That is not a choice per se, but an action based upon your 'self'. That which makes up your 'self'. You have the 'right' to answer yes or no, but your reply is determined by your opinions...which are shaped by your experiences, by your genetic make-up. If you chose to, deliberately, subvert your own faculties etc. (i.e lie), then surely that also would be a product of your inclinations? Even if you try to impose different and unusual decisions upon yourself, that is a choice dictated as much by your ‘self’ as any other.

I’m familiar with compatibilism, and the ‘recommended’ book. I do not find much stock in either. I’m making reference to ‘free will’ in very strict terms. Each action is determined by experience et al. Even the smallest. The brain might only veto because it has –learned- that a certain action is stupid.

'Free will' is a necessary illusion; but it is nothing more. It is not real.
Thank you for totally backing that argument with scientific data.

There is no such thing as ‘choice’.

I chose to respond to this post.

I thought about what I should do, and decided that I should respond to it.

No one held a gun to my head. My choice directly caused my action.

How am I not free?

Determined by your senses: by taste. You prefer the strawberry or the chocolate. That is not a choice per se, but an action based upon your 'self'.

The two are not mutually exclusive. To choose based on what you actually prefer to do is perfectly free.

What freedom is there in choosing what we do not prefer to do, based on something other than ourselves? Wouldn't any such choice be arbitrary?

Why would anyone? That's a movie most people would rather choose to eliminate from their memories.

I liked that movie. You on the other hand....:D

Yep. Although some lesser minds may indeed be completely predestined by their environment...


like you?

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

Now back this shit up.

WHat? No answer yet Liberated Communards?

'Lack of free will implies that my life is being controlled by some higher being.'

Not at all, I am an atheist. It implies that your actions are predetermined by your experiences et al. That's not an unreasonable presumption. Indeed, it is true.

And I am a Christian. According to my religion, my God gave me free will. As far as I'm concerned, he has. I'm choosing to reply to this post. I chose to have a curry microwaved for me tonight instead of getting a meal out somewhere. The smallest choices, however insignificant, are signs of our free will.

true, but you cant make the choice of no breathing and yet live to 99 years old at the age of 12.:p

or the choice to fly....

there are rules/rools thats efect ur actions, think of life like a video game.


(sorry about the p00r spelling)

Yes, there are rules. But on the whole, you can make choices on just about anything.

I'm gonna go ahead and copy paste this from one thread to the next, because the OP didn't look for other threads of a similar origin.

Free will.....this is a concept I've always had a hard time associating with an omniscient being, and even without I'm not sure I entirely believe in it.

Here goes.

Begin with the assumption that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and transcendent. So no matter what time we believe it to be, everything occurs at the same time for God. He knows the outcome of every probability because each cause is occurring simultaneously with its effect. In essence, he knows what we are going to do before we do, because he has already seen/will see/is seeing it.

Since we are not aware of the choices that lie in our paths to come, we will follow a straight line in God's eye, because he knows what we will choose to do. In this case, it can be argued that our fates, whether we will ultimately end up in Heaven or Hell, are predetermined, because we are already there, at least from God's point of view.

Now assuming that God is omnibenevolent, he wants us to be happy and with him in the afterlife, i.e. he wants us to be in Heaven as opposed to Hell, so he actually affects our decisions without direct intervention, considering that he is transcendent if he directly intervenes, he will cease to be transcendent and therefore omnipresent, and therefore not God. Since God must be God, he must not intervene directly.

Since God cannot interact with his Universe, he cannot give personal communication with any of his creations, and thus not give them proof of his existence, so his believers must have faith that this is the case, that they might be in Heaven with him.

Should God decide to stop being transcendent, in order to interact with the Universe, he must no longer be considered omniscient and omnipresent, and therefore if this occurs, our choices are no longer pointing in a straight line to God, because he can give proof of his existence, and thus change our final destination. If God is no longer omniscient and omnipresent, then the assumptions first made no longer hold, and we can become aware of the choices that we might have to make somewhere down the line and create a divergence from our original predestination, meaning we can change our final destination. In other words, should God decide to stop being transcendent, and therefore omniscient and omnipresent, all bets are off on what can happen.

In order to change the outcome of any particular choice, we must be aware of the choices we are making, and the choices that those choices will lead to. In other words, we have to know the consequences of our actions before we actually take action in order to actually change any outcome.

So, in my estimation, in order for there to be Free Will, we must have the qualities of the only person to truly have it, God. In being transcendent, omniscient and omnipresent, we can choose to stop being so to change the course of our lives by knowing what the end result of a particular choice will be, and to change our decision, but we must be aware of the end result in the first place before we can actually choose to change it.

Ouch. :headbang:

Only partially.

We are influenced towards what decision we might make, but it is ultimately up to internal factors to make a decision one way or another.

Read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. It makes a very good argument for compatabilism, the belief that determinism and free will can exist.

Also, the brain has the power to consciously veto its own actions before they happen. That's a pretty clear proof of free will, even if it is shaped by previous experiences. Free will does exist, but it is shaped by other factors.

I've read it, and compatibilism seems to be rather defunct. You concede that the brain might 'veto' on occasion; but this is based upon experience. Experiences, genetics (just as, if not more, important) and environment. Determinents. These influence all actions and decisions. That is all. You cannot make a 'decision' that is separate from your 'self'. Even any deliberate inclination to do so would not be subversive.

I'm a rational individual, therefore I have made the assumption that God does not exist (burden of proof lies with the theists/deists). 'It' has nothing to do with this argument.

Read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. It makes a very good argument for compatabilism, the belief that determinism and free will can exist.

Also, the brain has the power to consciously veto its own actions before they happen. That's a pretty clear proof of free will, even if it is shaped by previous experiences. Free will does exist, but it is shaped by other factors.

I've read it, and compatibilism seems to be rather defunct. You concede that the brain might 'veto' on occasion; but this is based upon experience. Experiences, genetics (just as, if not more, important) and environment. Determinents. These influence all actions and decisions. That is all. You cannot make a 'decision' that is separate from your 'self'. Even any deliberate inclination to do so would not be subversive.

I'm a rational individual, therefore I have made the assumption that God does not exist (burden of proof lies with the theists/deists). 'It' has nothing to do with this argument.

Considering that I beat this topic to death less than a week ago, I don't think I'll get too involved in any discussion that results from this.

But for the record:

1) We can neither prove nor disprove free will, either scientifically or theoretically. Scientifically the question evades the epistemology of falsification, and theoretically the question devolves into paradox.

2) Compatiblism generally takes determinism for granted, then constructs "a" concept of free will that is compatible with deterministic assumptions. The real project here is to construct a MORAL theory--including notions such as personal responsibility--that is compatible with determinism. But the question that an ethicist must ask is whether a/the CORRECT moral theory can be derived from determinism, or whether such a theory requires an incompatible notion of the will.

3) As it happens, while many significant moral terms can be translated into the language of determinism, certain very critical concepts CANNOT be made compatible with deterministic assumptions. In particular, determinism cannot tolerate a robust concept of DUTY--that is, the decision to behave morally because it is the right thing to do, and not for any other reason.

Thus, for the theorist of free will who maintains that having free will entails the ability to act out of duty--to act based on what is rationally, morally right regardless of personal preferences--FREE WILL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM.

Bah, rubbish. Lack of free will implies that my life is being controlled by some higher being.
Or that what appear to be choices are just the result of quantum activity in the brain. Just because you don't have free will doesn't mean the universe it deterministic. At the quantum level, activity can be pretty random. With current science, free will cannot be explained without the supernatural.

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

This is actually an argument FOR free will. Each action is determined by circumstances: this is the objective stance. But there's another stance in which we actually experience the world, that be the subjective stance. We do not experience the world objectively.

"Will" is a thing that happens freely subjectively.

*bump*
And don't forget the sauce!

An Argument Against Free Will

Typical stuff, I know. Poll is a tad simplistic. Just interested in opinion:

There is no such thing as free will. Each action is determined by genetics, sensory/emotional experiences and environment. There is no such thing as ‘choice’. You, the ‘self’, are shaped by your past and therefore cannot determine your future. The present is a reflection on the past, and the future a reflection on the present. Causation, determinism; whatever you might call it, it is patently obvious that it is fact.

Yes, the degree of free will one possesses is proportional to the degree in which one is a self-creator. Since there is no person who has ever been a self-creator in any degree, there has never been a human free actor.

Read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. It makes a very good argument for compatabilism, the belief that determinism and free will can exist.

Also, the brain has the power to consciously veto its own actions before they happen. That's a pretty clear proof of free will, even if it is shaped by previous experiences. Free will does exist, but it is shaped by other factors.

No he doesn't. He makes a great argument for causal determination, and then makes the poor argument that those who interpret his argument as deterministic are practicing "greedy reductionism".

I enjoyed the book, but it actually took me in the opposite direction of his argument.

I believe I was fated to believe in free will.