NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just proven free will exists. I'll tell you why. I have answered the question by creating a whole new thread that isn't within the original thread, thus, free will exists. If it didn't, I'd be bound to say no in agreement and post my answer here: Convince Me That Free Will Exists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568367).

By doing as I wish, I have proving free will is alive and well.

:D

... Y'know, you could have just posted this in that thread.

And it wouldn't have made much sense there anyway.

... Y'know, you could have just posted this in that thread.

And it wouldn't have made much sense there anyway.

Exactly my point. Normally I would have posted in the thread on the topic but to answer the question posed, I decided to pursue unorthodox methods. :D

Exactly my point. Normally I would have posted in the thread on the topic but to answer the question posed, I decided to pursue unorthodox methods. :D

spured by the topic of another thread. The only reason why you created this thread was because another thread prompted it. It was fueled by prior experience and outside circumstances, not personal "decision"

/devilsadvocate

spured by the topic of another thread. The only reason why you created this thread was because another thread prompted it. It was fueled by prior experience and outside circumstances, not personal "decision"

/devilsadvocate

Ah, but you see, I waited until that one hit 16 pages. You know.. like how Canada declared war on Germany 7 days after Britain did in 1939... free will exists. After that comes the compulsion to show it.

Ok, this is to everyone who's posting strange stuff that's supposed to prove they have free will:

That only works if the other person's argument for no free will is "I know that you will do this, that, and the other thing at time x, y, and z." Since that doesn't happen outside of fiction, you can't make any decision that by itself will prove you have free will.

Ah, but you see, I waited until that one hit 16 pages. You know.. like how Canada declared war on Germany 7 days after Britain did in 1939... free will exists. After that comes the compulsion to show it.

But... surely what you did is a 'logical', even predictable result? An organic event growing out of the previous events? Effect, directly traced to Cause?

But... surely what you did is a 'logical', even predictable result? An organic event growing out of the previous events? Effect, directly traced to Cause?

Yeah, but past experience on these forums shows people are most likely to post these threads in the immediate aftermath of their trigger.

Yeah, but past experience on these forums shows people are most likely to post these threads in the immediate aftermath of their trigger.

And, logically, therefore - in order to 'prove' the point, it is only a predictable response that someone would leave it a little longer... :)

And, logically, therefore - in order to 'prove' the point, it is only a predictable response that someone would leave it a little longer... :)

Yeah, but what if nobody posted it for that reason, but then proceeded to post it because they knew people would predicted it for that very reason? Who's leading who on here?

Perhaps there's only one person with free will and everyone follows them...

Perhaps there's only one person with free will and everyone follows them...

...and I wish you'd all stop because it's getting annoying.

...and I wish you'd all stop because it's getting annoying.

Yeah, someone was bound to say that...

Yeah, someone was bound to say that...

and that...

ad infinitum

Yeah, someone was bound to say that...

I had no choice in the matter.

Woah, logical inconsistency, universe collapsing...

How do you know you weren't supposed to make this thread, Padawan? It is your destiny ...

Yeah, but what if nobody posted it for that reason, but then proceeded to post it because they knew people would predicted it for that very reason? Who's leading who on here?

Perhaps there's only one person with free will and everyone follows them...

It's probably LG.

Doh! This is the free will line? I thought I was in the free beer line! Dagnabbit!!!

I have just proven free will exists. I'll tell you why. I have answered the question by creating a whole new thread that isn't within the original thread, thus, free will exists. If it didn't, I'd be bound to say no in agreement and post my answer here: Convince Me That Free Will Exists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568367).

By doing as I wish, I have proving free will is alive and well.

:D

I just hope you aren't a teacher or anything.

spured by the topic of another thread. The only reason why you created this thread was because another thread prompted it. It was fueled by prior experience and outside circumstances, not personal "decision"

/devilsadvocate

Wrong. The desicion part of it comes because he could have decided to not start a new thread, he decided otherwise.

Once again I'll say that free will is nothing more than the ability to make a choice.

Anybody want to tell me why it is not?

Wrong. The desicion part of it comes because he could have decided to not start a new thread, he decided otherwise.

Once again I'll say that free will is nothing more than the ability to make a choice.

Anybody want to tell me why it is not?
I think this argument is really getting quite semantic. There's the position you take. I can make a choice, thus I have free will. The counter to that, is that every thing you base your choice on, at some time came from something you had no say in.

Your genes, you had no choice. Large parts of your upbringing you had no choice. The choices you thought you had, were actually determined by your genes and prior events. Thus, if what you are deciding now is based on something you didn't have a choice in, it's not true free will.

That argument, to me though, is a bit cheesy. It is fundamentally correct, but does it mean anything?

I think this argument is really getting quite semantic. There's the position you take. I can make a choice, thus I have free will. The counter to that, is that every thing you base your choice on, at some time came from something you had no say in.

Your genes, you had no choice. Large parts of your upbringing you had no choice. The choices you thought you had, were actually determined by your genes and prior events. Thus, if what you are deciding now is based on something you didn't have a choice in, it's not true free will.

That argument, to me though, is a bit cheesy. It is fundamentally correct, but does it mean anything?

Yeah I get all of that but wghen give a choice between a bacon sadwhich and an egg sandwhich, even though I may like bacon better, I can still choose egg.

The fact that I am able to make a choice, in accordance with my will(or want) shows that I have free will.

The choice is the important thing the limitation of the choiecs I have is really a red herring.

It's probably LG.

You know the saying, "Lead, Follow or Get Out of The Way"? I wander, occasionally taking the time to throw off pursuit. :)

Well, here's a little test on the question on free choice.

You're driving a car with your loved ones as passengers. The car goes on to a bridge. The bridge is a bit slick. Your car starts to spin out. You now have a multitude of "choices."

You can try to steer the car in the direction you want to go in. With luck, quick reflexes, and skill, the car will gain enough traction to begin fishtailing, in which case, you manage to keep the car on the road and everyone in the car stays safe.

You can choose to do nothing and let the car do what it will, and pray that nothing will happen to you and your loved ones. Depending on how fast you were travelling when you hit the bridge, it could be a minor fender bender where you lose a coupla' lights, or it could be a total wipe out that results in a total massacre. If it's going to be a minor fender bender at worst, would you make a different decision than you would if it was going to be a total wipe out? If so, why? If your choices are based on outside circumstances, are they really your choices at all?

You can choose to slam on the accellorator, or possibly the brake. Either way, you'll only be making the situation worse, almost certainly causing the deaths and serious injuries of your loved ones in your car. How many of you would consciously make this choice? Why?

Finally, since we have asked "Why would you make a decision," we are in fact defining the very lack of free choice. You see, the argument against free will isn't about the fact that you have a choice. It's about the fact that when you look at "why" you made a choice, since the "whys" will never change, your choices would never change, and so it will be in the future.

If a person knew all the circumstances and all your knowledge, if they could understand all the "whys" of your decisions before you did, they could predict your choices. If they can predict your choices, then you do not have free choice.

We need only prove this by looking over our own lives. Ozzy Osbourne said it brilliantly in "Road to Nowhere." "Through all the happiness and sorrow, I guess I'd do it all again." In short, even Ozzy Osbourne admitted that, when he looked back at the wreckage of his life, he would not be able to change anything he did, unless he knew then what he knew now. And even then, it appears he would probably do it all again, anyway.

You are a computer. You have hardware. You have software. You have conditions. You make decisions based on the conditions around you. Each new decision changes your software a little bit, but you will always make decisions based on the limitations of your software and your conditions.

"A man can not cross the same river twice. It is not the same river, and it is not the same man."

Oh, on the situation above, I would predict that most of you would try to steer out of the impending disaster. To do anything else would be "absolute lunacy."

Well, here's a little test on the question on free choice.

You're driving a car with your loved ones as passengers. The car goes on to a bridge. The bridge is a bit slick. Your car starts to spin out. You now have a multitude of "choices."

You can try to steer the car in the direction you want to go in. With luck, quick reflexes, and skill, the car will gain enough traction to begin fishtailing, in which case, you manage to keep the car on the road and everyone in the car stays safe.

You can choose to do nothing and let the car do what it will, and pray that nothing will happen to you and your loved ones. Depending on how fast you were travelling when you hit the bridge, it could be a minor fender bender where you lose a coupla' lights, or it could be a total wipe out that results in a total massacre. If it's going to be a minor fender bender at worst, would you make a different decision than you would if it was going to be a total wipe out? If so, why? If your choices are based on outside circumstances, are they really your choices at all?

You can choose to slam on the accellorator, or possibly the brake. Either way, you'll only be making the situation worse, almost certainly causing the deaths and serious injuries of your loved ones in your car. How many of you would consciously make this choice? Why?

Finally, since we have asked "Why would you make a decision," we are in fact defining the very lack of free choice. You see, the argument against free will isn't about the fact that you have a choice. It's about the fact that when you look at "why" you made a choice, since the "whys" will never change, your choices would never change, and so it will be in the future.

If a person knew all the circumstances and all your knowledge, if they could understand all the "whys" of your decisions before you did, they could predict your choices. If they can predict your choices, then you do not have free choice.

We need only prove this by looking over our own lives. Ozzy Osbourne said it brilliantly in "Road to Nowhere." "Through all the happiness and sorrow, I guess I'd do it all again." In short, even Ozzy Osbourne admitted that, when he looked back at the wreckage of his life, he would not be able to change anything he did, unless he knew then what he knew now. And even then, it appears he would probably do it all again, anyway.

You are a computer. You have hardware. You have software. You have conditions. You make decisions based on the conditions around you. Each new decision changes your software a little bit, but you will always make decisions based on the limitations of your software and your conditions.

"A man can not cross the same river twice. It is not the same river, and it is not the same man."

Oh, on the situation above, I would predict that most of you would try to steer out of the impending disaster. To do anything else would be "absolute lunacy."

I do understand all of this, I don't agree with it though.

This for example.

'If a person knew all the circumstances and all your knowledge, if they could understand all the "whys" of your decisions before you did, they could predict your choices. If they can predict your choices, then you do not have free choice.'

There is no way you can proove this of course. So that makes it no more than a thought experiment.

This:

'If your choices are based on outside circumstances, are they really your choices at all?'

Of course they are, nobody else is makeing the choice, it is your Self.

And this:

'You see, the argument against free will isn't about the fact that you have a choice. It's about the fact that when you look at "why" you made a choice, since the "whys" will never change, your choices would never change, and so it will be in the future.'

Just does not logicaly follow.

Do this experiment and tell me the result.

Make two sandwhiches, one of which you do not like.

Pickup the one that you wish to eat, then at the last second put it down and take a bite from the other instead.

The 'whys' of your not likeing sandwhich B could be many, but if you choose to still take a bite despite knowing you don't like it, then that is an example of acting in accorance with your will, is it not?

Take it further, eat half of sandwhich B, then the whole of sandwhich A, go get some more food(of your own choice) and eat it untill you are full.

Now it has been determined that your stomach is full and that you can eat no more, go right ahead and finish off sandwhich B, yep yep, even though your body is screaming NO! at you, go right ahead and excersie your will over the demands of your body.

Free will exists.

Consider a omniscient godmachine/god and a couch:
- You're sitting on a couch and ask the machine/god that whether you will be sitting on the couch a minute later.

- Regardless of the answer, you can do the opposite assuming your capability to exercise free will isn't hindered by eg. a stroke or dematerialized couch.

Few notes:
- A machine could exercise free will
- If the answer is not revealed free will might or might not cease to have an effect
- There's a time&distance limit to free will, asking whether one is sitting on the couch 1/100th of a second away leaves no space or time for countering action.

But if his starting this thread was necessitated by the existence of the other thread combined with the laws of nature, then we can't hold him morally responsible for creating the thread because he had no choice.

Why? Because we love you!

I think this argument is really getting quite semantic. There's the position you take. I can make a choice, thus I have free will. The counter to that, is that every thing you base your choice on, at some time came from something you had no say in.

Your genes, you had no choice. Large parts of your upbringing you had no choice. The choices you thought you had, were actually determined by your genes and prior events. Thus, if what you are deciding now is based on something you didn't have a choice in, it's not true free will.

That argument, to me though, is a bit cheesy. It is fundamentally correct, but does it mean anything?

doesn't your genes also determine gender? and isn't there a way to correct that?

as science continues to improve, who knows... there might be a way to genetically change your hair color, skin tone, even remove genetic defects.

Well, here's a little test on the question on free choice.
[snip]

I like how anti-free will arguments always focuses on events where thought is, at most times, not possible. if one is skidding out of control, one won't have the time to weigh options.

But if his starting this thread was necessitated by the existence of the other thread combined with the laws of nature, then we can't hold him morally responsible for creating the thread because he had no choice.

Yeah, moral responsibility kind of torpedoes determinism...it either means they had no choice at all or that the entire environment was responsible for shaping their decision, something over which they had no control.

So, we either have the illusion of choice/moral responsibility or we have them. It seems a lot simpler to just cut out that illusion abstraction and just accept that we have them.