Free Will

[Tnerb]

Free will exists? Ah! Who would have thought that it is possible to have free will?

Many and most all persons have no belief in free will and only to some extent do they accept it. Many and all of these people also know that they are determinend, that they cannot choose, a choose, a choice.

I believe that choice is fundamentally possible but only if there exists some potential for free will to exist as such. Determinism is the only outcome and action of human nature possibly but free will exists as well, if only in possibility.

Now these are my thoughts on free will and I have a whole lot more. I am usually spit on when I share and that is fine but hey whatever yo.

Who ever thought they were smart? We have to think about ego and and things eventually. We gots to be able to come to some conclusion regarding some things. There usually is never any answers to anything irregardless which is sort of my stance on some things. YOu know that it relates to some of the other discussions we've had here in the philosophy forum. Like Objectivity and especially one of the other ones I forget... belief/evidence maybe I forget... Maybe lixlukes disbelieves in the assersions presented in this thread.... show me the computer lixluke.......

 

[swivel]

Free will does NOT exist. The concept makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[spidergoat]

I think we do have free will based on the notion that the mind makes use of random "noise" in the system to help generate thoughts and connections, I don't think this could be deterministic.

 

[Enmos]

Free will in the absolute sense doesn't exist.

 

[swivel]

I think we do have free will based on the notion that the mind makes use of random "noise" in the system to help generate thoughts and connections, I don't think this could be deterministic.

If our actions are, at best, probabilistic--it means they are not "free".

QED is based on probabilistic functions and yet it remains one of the most precise and accurate theories in science.

Again, it makes absolutely no sense to say that our actions are "free". Free from what? What would dictate our actions then? They can't be random or we would sound like Subjectivists!

a;dowof9pjdsvpoau98wfawoijfapw98uf;lksa

 

[Tnerb]

I think we do have free will based on the notion that the mind makes use of random "noise" in the system to help generate thoughts and connections, I don't think this could be deterministic.

Free will does NOT exist. The concept makes no sense whatsoever

I should have checked back for responses thx guys.
Free will yes this is more a religious topic. Of course that is what I intended.

God does not necessarially exist... God is simply part of our reality.

That said, though, I'd imagine someone could be fully free willed while others are fully deterministic.... Afterall what is free will but all of those other people who are determinend to act according to specific rules.

Excuse my stupidity and imagination.

 

[swivel]

That said, though, I'd imagine someone could be fully free willed while others are fully deterministic.... Afterall what is free will but all of those other people who are determinend to act according to specific rules.

Excuse my stupidity and imagination.

People can not be even partially "free willed" much less fully. Every action has to rely on the chemical and electrical state of the actor's brain, on what actions their bodies are capable of achieving, and on what constraints their environment places on their actions.

For instance: It is impossible for a person to choose for their heart to stop simply by wishing it so. It is also impossible for someone to have their adrenaline gland perform a full emission without their heart racing. It is impossible for someone to flap their arms on Earth in order to achieve flight, and it is impossible for a person buried under 8 feet of soil to crawl their way out.

It is almost impossible for any person to not flinch when a ball is thrown at them unexpectedly. It is almost impossible for someone to not sweat on their palms and feet when they are frightened. It is almost impossible to not be frightened when a person senses they are about to fall from a great height.

People with phobias can not simple choose to be rid of them. People with sexual orientations can not change them on a whim. People have a very difficult time not feeling envy without much practice and gradual progress. People have a difficult time not reacting to every situation in a way that mirrors previous reactions. People have a hard time not acting like their mothers and fathers in ways that annoy themselves. Habits are, axiomatically, very, very difficult to break.

We can go on and on like this with examples that demonstrate a complete lack of Free Will and not come up with a single instance of Free Will. I wonder why that is? Do the people who reflexively state, "I could punch you right now without warning" not realize that this is their response every time the discussion is brought up? Or that those same people will now be LESS likely to bring this up now that I have pointed out the hypocrisy within that statement?

Every action is reflexive and depends on the ever-shifting chemical states that we find ourselves in. The illusion of "constancy of self" is just that... an illusion. We are different types of people at every moment of our lives and just cling to a sense of "sameness" because these millions of personalities all share the same set of memories.


Edit: You are excused.

 

[Read-Only]

People can not be even partially "free willed" much less fully. Every action has to rely on the chemical and electrical state of the actor's brain, on what actions their bodies are capable of achieving, and on what constraints their environment places on their actions.

For instance: It is impossible for a person to choose for their heart to stop simply by wishing it so. It is also impossible for someone to have their adrenaline gland perform a full emission without their heart racing. It is impossible for someone to flap their arms on Earth in order to achieve flight, and it is impossible for a person buried under 8 feet of soil to crawl their way out.

It is almost impossible for any person to not flinch when a ball is thrown at them unexpectedly. It is almost impossible for someone to not sweat on their palms and feet when they are frightened. It is almost impossible to not be frightened when a person senses they are about to fall from a great height.

People with phobias can not simple choose to be rid of them. People with sexual orientations can not change them on a whim. People have a very difficult time not feeling envy without much practice and gradual progress. People have a difficult time not reacting to every situation in a way that mirrors previous reactions. People have a hard time not acting like their mothers and fathers in ways that annoy themselves. Habits are, axiomatically, very, very difficult to break.

We can go on and on like this with examples that demonstrate a complete lack of Free Will and not come up with a single instance of Free Will. I wonder why that is? Do the people who reflexively state, "I could punch you right now without warning" not realize that this is their response every time the discussion is brought up? Or that those same people will now be LESS likely to bring this up now that I have pointed out the hypocrisy within that statement?

Every action is reflexive and depends on the ever-shifting chemical states that we find ourselves in. The illusion of "constancy of self" is just that... an illusion. We are different types of people at every moment of our lives and just cling to a sense of "sameness" because these millions of personalities all share the same set of memories.


Edit: You are excused.

That's actually a rather silly string of arguments in a vain attempt to disprove the existence of free will.

The very concept of free will is that you do not have a choice in your actions - and the idea is highly absurd! You always have a choice.

Certainly those choices can be limited - not everyone has the funds or abilities to be a brain surgeon, astronaut or head of a major company - but there are still dozens of choices we make every single day and MILLIONS over the course of a lifetime. Non of those were "decided for us before we were born" or in any other sense that denies the existence of free will or choice.

 

[swivel]

The very concept of free will is that you do not have a choice in your actions - and the idea is highly absurd!

Uhhh, no. The idea of free will is that you DO have a choice in your actions.

You always have a choice..

If you think the answer is this simple--you haven't studied the problem. But then again, you seem to be completely backwards on what the terms in this discussion mean... so once you get that sorted out you might be able to join in.

 

[Read-Only]

Uhhh, no. The idea of free will is that you DO have a choice in your actions.



If you think the answer is this simple--you haven't studied the problem. But then again, you seem to be completely backwards on what the terms in this discussion mean... so once you get that sorted out you might be able to join in.

My mistake - I inadvertently typed the very opposite of what I meant to say.

And I have studied the situation - for a very large number of years and quite extensively. Most likely for a greater number of years than you've even been alive. I also want to go on record as having noted that I dislike your rather snobbish attitude. Despite that one simple mistake, you could very easily tell from the context exactly what my position on the topic is:

Free will is very much "alive and well" - predestination is nothing more than a fable - and a feeble excuse used by some in a fruitless attempt to distance themselves from being responsible for their own actions.

NOW - is that clear enough for you???????????

 

[Jaster Mereel]

The question of free will is a question of responsibility for one's actions. Regardless of whether you are predisposed toward certain actions or thoughts, they are still your actions and thoughts; they belong to you.

A deterministic position denies the existence of the mind that is taking the deterministic position; hell, the idea that anyone could be wrong on the issues, the very idea of "wrongness" itself is completely nonsensical unless people are responsible for these "wrong" thoughts and actions, and have a choice in making them. Why bother arguing if you actually thought I had no choice in writing what I am writing now, and you had no choice in reading and then disagreeing with those very words?

Even responding to these questions with any kind of reasoning at all implies that you cannot be a determinist, since argument itself implies the possibility of correctness or incorrectness on the part of one or more parties to the discussion, and you cannot be correct or incorrect at all if you cannot choose what to think. Sheesh.

 

[Read-Only]

The question of free will is a question of responsibility for one's actions. Regardless of whether you are predisposed toward certain actions or thoughts, they are still your actions and thoughts; they belong to you.

A deterministic position denies the existence of the mind that is taking the deterministic position; hell, the idea that anyone could be wrong on the issues, the very idea of "wrongness" itself is completely nonsensical unless people are responsible for these "wrong" thoughts and actions, and have a choice in making them. Why bother arguing if you actually thought I had no choice in writing what I am writing now, and you had no choice in reading and then disagreeing with those very words?

Even responding to these questions with any kind of reasoning at all implies that you cannot be a determinist, since argument itself implies the possibility of correctness or incorrectness on the part of one or more parties to the discussion, and you cannot be correct or incorrect at all if you cannot choose what to think. Sheesh.

Agreed! The whole idea of there NOT being free will is pure nonsense. It's been shown time and again to be completely false - yet there is always another nutter that wants to claim it doesn't exist. Some people's version of logic is so warped that it defies description!!

 

[disease]

If there is such a thing as 'free' will, is there such a thing as 'fixed' will?

(I always wanted to ask my Phil 101 prof that one).

 

[swarm]

I've no problem with the coexistence of free will events, deterministic events and chance events.

 

[swivel]

A deterministic position denies the existence of the mind that is taking the deterministic position;

Of course it is. There is no such thing as the "mind".

The brain is made up of many interconnected modules. Our thoughts and emotions arise from the firing of neurons. There is no immaterial "mind" or "spirit" pushing on these neurons or interacting with our material selves to grant us the ability to change what our brains are doing.

Does this create problems with culpability? Some, but not the extreme problems that most philosophers fear. And here is why:

By PRETENDING that we have free will and assigning blame based on people's behaviors, we create a stimuli that alters those behaviors. That is: by telling people that if they kill someone, they will be treated as if they chose, by their own volition, to kill that person and will be held directly responsible, we are creating an environment which contains a powerful stimulus to NOT KILL.

Once we have been told that killing will result in our own deaths, the pattern of firings in our brains have been changed in a way that lessens the likelihood of us killing someone else.

My own conclusions on this conundrum are these, then: Free will does not exist, but the illusion of free will provides grease for the gears of a civilized society. Free will can not possibly exist, but the illusion should probably be maintained outside of philosophical circles.

 

[Read-Only]

Of course it is. There is no such thing as the "mind".

The brain is made up of many interconnected modules. Our thoughts and emotions arise from the firing of neurons. There is no immaterial "mind" or "spirit" pushing on these neurons or interacting with our material selves to grant us the ability to change what our brains are doing.

Does this create problems with culpability? Some, but not the extreme problems that most philosophers fear. And here is why:

By PRETENDING that we have free will and assigning blame based on people's behaviors, we create a stimuli that alters those behaviors. That is: by telling people that if they kill someone, they will be treated as if they chose, by their own volition, to kill that person and will be held directly responsible, we are creating an environment which contains a powerful stimulus to NOT KILL.

Once we have been told that killing will result in our own deaths, the pattern of firings in our brains have been changed in a way that lessens the likelihood of us killing someone else.

My own conclusions on this conundrum are these, then: Free will does not exist, but the illusion of free will provides grease for the gears of a civilized society. Free will can not possibly exist, but the illusion should probably be maintained outside of philosophical circles.

What a bunch of utter nonsense!:bugeye:

If you actually believe what you are saying here, your level of intelligence is certainly questionable.

 

[swivel]

What a bunch of utter nonsense!:bugeye:

If you actually believe what you are saying here, your level of intelligence is certainly questionable.

One of us is wrong, that is for sure.

Maybe we could use the forums for exchanging our different ideas on the subject and see what happens?

Or, if you prefer, I will continue listing my well-reasoned arguments including the latest findings in neurology and psychology and you can just come in now and then and call me an idiot?

Both work fine for me.

 

[Read-Only]

One of us is wrong, that is for sure.

Maybe we could use the forums for exchanging our different ideas on the subject and see what happens?

Or, if you prefer, I will continue listing my well-reasoned arguments including the latest findings in neurology and psychology and you can just come in now and then and call me an idiot?

Both work fine for me.

You have NO "well-reasoned" arguments. Your statements are completely illogical, self-contradictory and the products of an irrational mind. Also, there are NO findings in neurology that show any opposition to the concept of free will - that's simply wishful thinking and misrepresentation on YOUR part, not that of any professional researcher.:bugeye:

 

[swivel]

You have NO "well-reasoned" arguments. Your statements are completely illogical, self-contradictory and the products of an irrational mind. Also, there are NO findings in neurology that show any opposition to the concept of free will - that's simply wishful thinking and misrepresentation on YOUR part, not that of any professional researcher.:bugeye:

^ That is your argument for an invisible force that has complete control over the nero-chemical processes in our brains? :bugeye:

 

[Read-Only]

^ That is your argument for an invisible force that has complete control over the nero-chemical processes in our brains? :bugeye:

That's my argument against all of your silly claims - in fact, you've NO idea what you're even talking about. And you obviously think it's "Nero-chemical" instead of "neuro-chemical." Give us a break - you're undereducated and we can all see it!!:bugeye:

There is no "invisible force" with control - that's just more of your mumbo-jumbo that makes no sense at all.