Free Will : Othor Games

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:04 am

well, that wasn't a complete answer. I am not just a blob. I get that our brain works on chemistry and electrons. I am not just a chemical blob that can be predicted.
I am a person that can be predicted. A person that can be consistent.

So idk. Free will and per-determination, they like einstein's relativity and Newton's physics. Both hold true but neither are complete.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:44 am

well, that wasn't a complete answer. I am not just a blob. I get that our brain works on chemistry and electrons. I am not just a chemical blob that can be predicted.
I am a person that can be predicted. A person that can be consistent.

So idk. Free will and per-determination, they like einstein's relativity and Newton's physics. Both hold true but neither are complete.

Simply because you cannot accept the fact that the brain runs only because of the laws of physics does not make it untrue. You aren't examining it from any perspective other than "I don't like how that sounds".

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:25 am

Simply because you cannot accept the fact that the brain runs only because of the laws of physics does not make it untrue. You aren't examining it from any perspective other than "I don't like how that sounds".

I dunno. I feel like we're made up of more than our constituent parts due to interesting arrangement and construction of said parts in the brain-case.

Thoughts have texture though we can't feel them, they have color though we can't see them. They just don't make sense.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:09 am

How is this not a religious discussion? Just because one doesn't mention a particular religious belief doesn't mean it's not religion.

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:21 pm

How is this not a religious discussion? Just because one doesn't mention a particular religious belief doesn't mean it's not religion.

Because it's not purely religious. See, there's no such thing as a purely non-political historical event, either, but there's enough material to discuss that we can avoid the topic of religion entirely (in name only, at least, and that's good enough for the mods. Don't push them).

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:25 pm

How is this not a religious discussion? Just because one doesn't mention a particular religious belief doesn't mean it's not religion.

It CAN be religious if people so choose to make it so. It can also quite clearly not be, as you can see from this thread being virtually free of it until you mentioned it.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:44 am

Because it's not purely religious. See, there's no such thing as a purely non-political historical event, either, but there's enough material to discuss that we can avoid the topic of religion entirely (in name only, at least, and that's good enough for the mods. Don't push them).

But aren't our opinions influenced by what we believe in? People who don't believe in a god will discuss this according to their belief and people who do will (or would) discuss this according to their belief.

I guess I just look at it differently... Mods delete my posts or whatever. I don't want to cause this thread to get locked if its not against the rules.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:42 am

But aren't our opinions influenced by what we believe in? People who don't believe in a god will discuss this according to their belief and people who do will (or would) discuss this according to their belief.

Well, hey. Our beliefs tint the color of our other beliefs. We can't avoid that. But we can avoid, well enough, the subjects that are very volatile, and have mental jousts by proxy. It's not that difficult to make these events civil and insightful, unless people make it otherwise.

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:22 pm

But aren't our opinions influenced by what we believe in? People who don't believe in a god will discuss this according to their belief and people who do will (or would) discuss this according to their belief.

I guess I just look at it differently... Mods delete my posts or whatever. I don't want to cause this thread to get locked if its not against the rules.

Maybe you do, but you are the only person who brought up religion specifically and tried to make it about religion. I am willing to let the topic go on if everyone else can continue to avoid religious references or bringing religion into the discussion.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:10 am

Man, knew I shouldn't have gone to bed

.

I find the question "Do we control our own actions" to be far less of a bastardization of the question "Do people have free will" than the one you're proposing, "Are our actions pre-determined or not." If our actions are determined in advance, but we do the determining, I don't see in what meaningful way that means we don't have free will. To twist Shakespeare a little farther, we are free agents even if we are reading from a script, as long as we wrote the script.

You're right that the question of determinism is far more interesting than (at least my interpretation of) the question of free will...but I disagree that your reformulation is closer to the original question than mine. The original question is one of agency, a tenet which I feel my reformulation sticks to; yours recasts the question in terms of the mutability of the future, which seems to me to be an entirely different question.

I have to disagree with you here. The question of free will - "Do people have free will?" - has been debated and studied for centuries (if not millennium) by philosophers. My "question", as I reformed it ("Are people's actions pre-determined or not?") is essentially exactly the same as the question "Do people have free will?" The term "free will" has been typically defined throughout the ages as:
1 : voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (emphasis mine)
(Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free+will)
So, again, my reformed question ("Are people's actions predetermined or not?") is closer in meaning to the historical definitions of the term and question of "free will" than your question of "Do we control our own actions?" Your question can easily be answered in the physical realm - of course people (the brain) controls the actions of their body - there is scientific evidence to prove this. However, whether or not the actions taken by that body are pre-determined or not is essentially what (some) in this thread are asking, which is an entirely different can of worms which doesn't have an "easy" answer.

I'm looking at this as if it was a contained chemistry experiment. Two elements react in the same way over and over again without outside influences. Everything, including those elements, are made of atoms. When atoms and most of what they make up(if not all) react in pre-determined ways without outside influences(and even then, reactions can be determined), then why can't our actions? We are made up of atoms, which react predictably. How can particles that react predictably make up something that doesn't? What are outside influences on the world? Isn't the world one similar to one giant experiment? The whole world is contained within one giant space, which is the world itself, and the particles that make up everything act predictably. Without outside influences, they will continue to act predictably, but why would we be different? Also, for those saying "I chose to do this, but I could have chose not to"(or something following that basic formula), why isn't that a predictable action. To claim to do be able to do one thing when you didn't doesn't prove anything, because you didn't. Why would one have free will just because they did something when another option seemed to have been available? You only chose to do one thing, which doesn't prove you could have chose the other option. How are we capable of choosing what to do when we are made up by predictable particles and when our very existence is due to predtictable reactions? Doesn't every single atom affect every other, therefore our decisions are predictable reactions to what happens around us? We may be complex, but why does that give us free will? Reactions and the factors that affect them are present in a complex variety within us, but couldn't they still be predictable, yet we just can't predict them ourselves?
Your argument basically boils down to "Well you chose to do A, but you say you could have instead done B. But you didn't!" People can only choose to do one thing at one specific point in time. Also, the whole idea of "predictable particles / reactions = predictable human actions" is missing the point. Simply because someone / some object is predictable doesn't mean that the person does not have free will. The two are completely different ideas. The idea that "I know X, Y and Z variables and this allows me to predict with 99.99% accuracy the actions of person A" does not mean that person A does not have free will. It simply means that you, as an outside agent, can predict the actions taken by another agent based upon a thorough understanding of the person and their environment. You will however, at some point in time, be wrong, because those are predictions and not absolutes.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:07 am

Free will? My house cost me 200 grand!

*badum ksshh*

In my humble opinion I'd believe in situations of no gain, free will is unnecessary. If you're asking "my friend wants to go to the movies, and I said no, did I do this of my own free will?" then I'd have to say no. You did this because you didn't like your friend, or knew your friend was boring..Basically pre-determination.

Now, if the situation involves self-gain, such as "my friend wants to rob a liquor store, and I said no, did I do this of my own free will?" then I'd have to say yes. Providing it's your first time committing a crime of that nature, I'd argue that there would be no ability to pre-determine that situation.

You know when you're thinking, say playing dice, and you're betting what number to choose? Are the people who believe in pre-determination trying to say that when asked we already know what number to choose? As with the prior situation, are you saying that in these situations we've no thoughts that actually effect the outcome of the situation at hand?

If so, I disagree fully.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:39 am

The idea that "I know X, Y and Z variables and this allows me to predict with 99.99% accuracy the actions of person A" does not mean that person A does not have free will. It simply means that you, as an outside agent, can predict the actions taken by another agent based upon a thorough understanding of the person and their environment. You will however, at some point in time, be wrong, because those are predictions and not absolutes.

Well, the whole idea is that you WILL NEVER be wrong (with an impossible but theoretical knowledge of every single state of every particle in the entire deterministic system) because the mind is inflexibly subject to the laws of physics. You are right, however, that it does not necessarily exclude free will, depending on your definition of free will.

As with the prior situation, are you saying that in these situations we've no thoughts that actually effect the outcome of the situation at hand?

No, it's just that the thoughts you DO have that affect the outcome of what number you choose are based on your environment and previous experience (which leads to your current brain state).

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:08 am

How do we know she would have chosen to do something else when she didn't?

Umm, you'd know only if you were a psychic clairvoyant medium.

» Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Well, the whole idea is that you WILL NEVER be wrong (with an impossible but theoretical knowledge of every single state of every particle in the entire deterministic system) because the mind is inflexibly subject to the laws of physics. You are right, however, that it does not necessarily exclude free will, depending on your definition of free will.

Yes, if you can somehow manage to have complete knowledge of every state of every single particle in the entire system, then of course you can predict with 100% accuracy. However, that type of knowledge is essentially impossible and as far as the discussion goes for someone to jump out to such an extreme position means they are basically being pseudophilosophical. It still doesn't tell us, however, whether the actions of an agent are pre-determined or not. It instead posits the (im)possibility of predicting the actions of said agent with 100% accuracy.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:15 am

Yes, if you can somehow manage to have complete knowledge of every state of every single particle in the entire system, then of course you can predict with 100% accuracy. However, that type of knowledge is essentially impossible and as far as the discussion goes for someone to jump out to such an extreme position means they are basically being pseudophilosophical. It still doesn't tell us, however, whether the actions of an agent are pre-determined or not. It instead posits the (im)possibility of predicting the actions of said agent with 100% accuracy.

If having absolute knowledge of all physical matter in the present allows you to predict with perfect accuracy a person's actions, then their actions are predetermined. Since all matter behaves this way except on a quantum level, it is extremely relevant, because it is, to the best of our knowledge, how it actually works.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:39 pm

If having absolute knowledge of all physical matter in the present allows you to predict with perfect accuracy a person's actions, then their actions are predetermined. Since all matter behaves this way except on a quantum level, it is extremely relevant, because it is, to the best of our knowledge, how it actually works.

Yes, but the point is that you can't have absolute knowledge of all the physical matter in the present. Simply because a theory can be posited that tries to take into account a massive amount of variables and somehow can deal with all the reactions and interactions of those variables doesn't mean that the theory is valid (and likely it can't be falsified). The mere fact that matter doesn't always behave on this level (i.e. quantum level) means that not all of the interactions and reactions can be predicted. Regardless, the whole argument of whether or not an agent's actions are pre-determined or not is essentially a mind game and has perhaps no practical value whatsoever. Even if you could prove that all agents actions are pre-determined (and I still wouldn't want to believe it... pre-determinedly!

) there is nothing to be gained from that knowledge aside from perhaps a person's piece of mind and even then 90% of people probably wouldn't care one way or the other.

Secondly, all of us here are certainly not the first to have this discussion. If all it took was "If every single variable and interaction is known and accounted for, then an agents actions are predetermined" and that was that, then I can just about promise you, for whatever reason, the argument doesn't hold water with enough individuals to settle the matter.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:56 am

Simply because you cannot accept the fact that the brain runs only because of the laws of physics does not make it untrue. You aren't examining it from any perspective other than "I don't like how that sounds".

I am examining it from other perspectives. Not to the right standards apparently.
I am not going to say that our brains defy the laws of physics, but only because of the laws of physics? I don't like how that sounds. And to be frank I don't buy it.
The laws of physics, effectively, amount to extreme versions of Darwinism. The laws of physics impose the existence of something from a nothing. The laws of physics reduce me, something, to nothing. The laws of physics are not a good enough, single, explanation for me to live my life by.
You and I see truth differently. And I would agree with you, it you cut out that "only". I don't buy it. Its not good enough.

And, do you know absolute truth, are you prepared to say this and only this exists.
The theory of relativity, physics. Neither has been proven wrong, but the one does not exist in the realm of the other.
Light, ordinary lightbulb light, can be found as a particle or a wave. When looking for a particle, you find a particle. When looking for a wave, you find a wave. And never the twain shall meet. But we experience light. Light being a wave does not change its particle form, and light being a particle does not change its wave form. But the second you say it is only one or the other...
Light Is.

How is this not a religious discussion? Just because one doesn't mention a particular religious belief doesn't mean it's not religion.

No one has a direct quote or reference. And to your point, I agree 100%. This seems not quite as hostile as a few other posts, hopefully we can keep it that way.

Free will? My house cost me 200 grand!

*badum ksshh*

In my humble opinion I'd believe in situations of no gain, free will is unnecessary. If you're asking "my friend wants to go to the movies, and I said no, did I do this of my own free will?" then I'd have to say no. You did this because you didn't like your friend, or knew your friend was boring..Basically pre-determination.

Now, if the situation involves self-gain, such as "my friend wants to rob a liquor store, and I said no, did I do this of my own free will?" then I'd have to say yes. Providing it's your first time committing a crime of that nature, I'd argue that there would be no ability to pre-determine that situation.

You know when you're thinking, say playing dice, and you're betting what number to choose? Are the people who believe in pre-determination trying to say that when asked we already know what number to choose? As with the prior situation, are you saying that in these situations we've no thoughts that actually effect the outcome of the situation at hand?

If so, I disagree fully.

Free will and pre-determination. Are they mutually exclusive?
Does pattern eliminate somethings existence?

Edit:

as you can see from this thread being virtually free of it until you mentioned it.

Free of it, no. Free of the tinderbox that is its name.

And if anyone wants to wade deeper into philosophy, Free will? Free of what. The base term in there is 'will', 'free' is just a modifier. I'd go with free of restriction, that makes the most sense to what we are talking about. Free of ice cream is a bit to anti-dairy a statement for me.
But then another, I think, good question. Can something be free of consequence?

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:11 am

well, that wasn't a complete answer. I am not just a blob. I get that our brain works on chemistry and electrons. I am not just a chemical blob that can be predicted.
I am a person that can be predicted.

Once again, due to the nature of quantum mechanics you can't be predicted. That, however, doesn't mean that your actions and what happens in your body is not already determined, it only means that we (and no one else within the Universe) aren't capable of finding out what exactly is predetermined to happen, if something is predetermined to happen.

As far as we as observers within our Universe are concerned, we might as well say that a person does have free will because to us there is virtually no difference between free will existing or not - in both cases we aren't capable of predicting exactly what a person is going to think and do, because of the nature of quantum mechanics. One might say that quantum mechanics implies the existence of free will even for single particles, arguing that photons' and electrons' etc. "ability" to behave in the unpredictable way they do basically grants them "primitive free will" and that we, as a huge bunch of those particles, consequently have free will ourselves.

The question of existence of free will basically just boils down to whether the behaviour of quantum particles is predetermined even though we ourselves aren't capable of finding out in which way it is predetermined or not. In one case free will simply cannot exist, in the other it can (and does).

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:05 am

Yes, you always have free will. Its the fact that the consequences of some actions can be fatal, but you can do whatever you want to do to be honest.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:24 am

Free of it, no. Free of the tinderbox that is its name.

Most people here are just discussing free will VS determinism, which is a problem in philosophy; nothing more. :shrug: Maybe with some scientific insights that can come into play. But the thing you are talking about has nothing to do with this topic at all. Actually, my stomach hurts just to think that you're observing a pretty reasonable philosophical debate, yet thinking it is something akin to that.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:30 am

I haven't read every post in this thread, but it made me think of a video that I wish I could find, and I dunno if one of you have posted it already. But basically the video was about a guy who went through a series of basic decision making tests while hooked up to an EEG or some other type of monitor, and the results came out that his subconscious made a decision up to 3-4 seconds before he consciously did.
I don't know one way or the other, I tend to just live my life without trying to understand the mysteries of the universe or whatever, but the results from that video were food for thought at least. I doubt it applies to major decisions as opposed to ''Pick Box A or Box B'' style decisions, but it's interesting regardless.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:07 am

The question of existence of free will basically just boils down to whether the behaviour of quantum particles is predetermined even though we ourselves aren't capable of finding out in which way it is predetermined or not. In one case free will simply cannot exist, in the other it can (and does).

If it isn't predetermined, then free will exists. If it is, then we still aren't finished as we then need to prove the consequence argument and to do that you need to explain the beginning of the universe and what caused that.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:39 am

The question of existence of free will basically just boils down to whether the behaviour of quantum particles is predetermined even though we ourselves aren't capable of finding out in which way it is predetermined or not. In one case free will simply cannot exist, in the other it can (and does).

Quantum mechanics just means we don't know ----. It does not mean there is not a future, and it does not mean, heh, that free will and pre-determination are mutually exclusive.
Is free will gone after you decide something. To what I said earlier. Is your will gone after you make a decision, only to return again after the monotony of the first choice has been completed or canceled.

Edit: re-read your post. I agree up to that last, quoted, part. So...inaccurate rant.

Most people here are just discussing free will VS determinism, which is a problem in philosophy; nothing more. :shrug: Maybe with some scientific insights that can come into play. But the thing you are talking about has nothing to do with this topic at all. Actually, my stomach hurts just to think that you're observing a pretty reasonable philosophical debate, yet thinking it is something akin to that.

What I am talking about is what I see and what I believe. Thats all anyone can do, right? I do have some more questions for you, but I'll leave that for a pm. [pm's not working, if you're interested, check the "about me" thing.]
Free will Vs, determinism. I am still hold up on the vs.

more examples: In physics, we can do a position vs time test, derive a velocity vs time graph, and figure an acceleration. If we know the acceleration, we can determine velocity. If we know the velocity we can determine the position. But does the particle actually cease to exist, cease its movement, when we only are given an acceleration. Its position is pre-determined, its speed is predetermined. Again, from what we know.

Edit: [I sound like the most annoying kind of broken record, I do realize that]

If it isn't predetermined, then free will exists. If it is, then we still aren't finished as we then need to prove the consequence argument and to do that you need to explain the beginning of the universe and what caused that.

So are you in for physics? For something out of nothing. For a free lunch?
Not you specifically, Da Nang. Just a general question.

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:12 am

I believe we all have free will.

:foodndrink:

» Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:47 am

Hey — guess what: You're the only creature with free will. How does that make you feel? - Kurt Vonnegut