About the subconscious thing. Your subconscious mind can still choose. It doesn't matter at what level the actual decision process happens. Unless you believe in Freud and are somehow trying to fight the lower part of your mind or some other shenanigans.

Then there is the actual theory that all of time is done and we are much like a film strip going through its movements and "free choice" is an illusion. I am not familiar with the theory, so I can't comment more. Although I doubt we have any way of testing it. Like I said I could be wrong, and it may be possible. Who knows.

Well that's good then. I haven't read most of the posts but I just assumed someone would. I'm on phone and the text is tiny, bad zoom func

I'm not entirely sure if you were directing this post at me, but it seems related so I'll comment anyway.

I agree that your subconscious mind makes choices. It has too for you to be a functioning human. But for it to be subconscious, your thought processes aren't entirely "thought out". A lot of them are behind the scenes, as I was trying to say, and these branch and develop and add to your "real" thoughts.

Random aside that really has nothing to do with the conversation but I just felt like it (FREE WILL!!!!1!11): http://www.amazon.com/Tickle-Me-Freud-Plush-Doll/dp/B000SSYYME (if that makes you giggle like a schoolgirl, you're probably a psychologist like me!)

I was getting at something similar to a film strip going through its movements, but I've never heard of that theory before. I'm questioning whether we have free will or not and whether or not the events that will happen in the future are set in stone because no matter what people do, they are only doing it as a reaction to anything happening, in a predictable manner. I can't quite explain what I'm asking and I know it doesn't quite make sense, but seeing as there are no outside influences(that we know of) on the world, couldn't everything actually be set in stone, even it didn't happen yet?

Longer answer: Whooooooo caaaaaareees.

I don't see why people burn themselves up over this so often. It's like those true love topics that pop up now and then. We cannot define true love even in ourselves, and we cannot gauge it in others. Trying to determine whether someone has experienced true love, even yourself, is utterly futile from the beginning. Same with free will. Can it even be defined at all, with the billions of complex corners of our brains and theoretical butterfly effects of childhood on personality, in all the little emotions that influence how we react to any situation, and so on? Would the impossibility of recognizing whether we have even begin to make it possible to DO anything about it?

I have no desire to strain myself over a question that can't be answered with an answer that doesn't matter. I'mma go eat pie instead.

Free will an unfalsifiable concept and therefore cannot be tested. Although I don't really have any belief in free will, I probably live my life as if I have it probably because If we don't have free will, I don't really have a say in the matter and if we do then I guess I'm right in acting as so; with this being the case, it's pretty meaningless to worry myself with the question.

I was bored. :shrug:

Maybe you can't ever reach a solid conclusion, but it's still fun discussing. Anyway, the bolded is pretty much what I've been trying to say, again.

Even if the "filmstrip" theory is true and everything has been predetermined (essentially logical determinism) there is no way to prove the "filmstrip" theory as true - or false. To me, the question of free will is a question that has no answer and even if the answer were known there is no consequence in knowing the answer.

No, no it's not.

... so either I'm a masochist, or I have homework and I'm simply procrastinating.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'm interested how this topic will look in the morning.

I like to think that we have free will..... or am I just programed to think that I have free will..... hmmmm Oh ya thats right, it doesn't matter in the least.

Far as I'm concerned, "do we have free will" isn't even a well-formed question until you smack it around a little. It's either asking whether our subjective, conscious selves can exert control over our physical selves (which is a stupid question because it posits a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 that we have no reason to think exists), or it's asking whether our actions are entirely determined by forces external to ourselves (which is a stupid question because the answer is totally obvious; if they were, psychologists would have nothing to study).

So, my own conclusion: Our actions are determined by a combination of circumstance and our own physical state, but since our physical state is all we are, this means that our selves do indeed (at least in part, which is all free will should require) control our actions. Thus, if the question of free will is formulated in the only way that even has a hope of being internally consistent, the answer is obviously "yes, we have free will."

The idea that this is an unanswerable question of philosophy doesn't make any sense to me...free will is only a question of philosophy with regard to the proper formulation of the question (i.e., defining "free will") that I've referred to above. Beyond that, it's an empirical question, and an easy one at that: Of course our minds (read: brains) control our behavior. What did you think was doing it, your mom?

*edit*
To frame my viewpoint in the context of the OP a little more, who is this "we" you're positing that doesn't include our personalities, our values, our mindsets, or who we are? Yes, those things determine our actions...but those things are integral parts of our selves (since you included the phrase "who they are," more like the entirety of our selves). So the fact that those are determining factors in the paths we choose is only proof that we ourselves determine those paths...in other words, that we have free will in the only sense that makes any sense.

That, or...

Just like pre-destination and free will. Why not both?

Not to be too contrary... but you're essentially reducing the question down so much that it isn't the same question anymore. There is a reason philosophers have struggled with this question for a long, long time. You've taken an esoteric question "Do people have free will?" and are redefining it (and losing the focus) and then answering it from a biological standpoint - you're looking at the physical act of controlling versus whether the controller has free will to choose the actions or if his actions have already been determined. In a longer from, the question "Do people have free will?" is perhaps better written out as:

Are people's actions pre-determined or are their actions not pre-determined?
(To mangle Shakespeare: Are we actors simply reading from a script or are we instead making it up as we go along?)

Once the question is written in that form (which is equal, at least in my head, to the question "Do people have free will?") your explanation of mind / body controlling doesn't exactly fit the scope of the question anymore.

In this regard, I am seriously making this [censored] up as I go along. -my choices in life that is..
There is no way I could have envisioned the path I have walked before I walked it. And the same goes for the choices made along the way. The only limiting restriction in those choices where that they were all made out of a current nessecity of that moment.

While the issue is potentially intractable, it's certainly much easier and simpler to argue that we don't have free will. If this is your position, then you're going to have a pretty easy time making your case.

It's an argument for free will that is really, really tough to make. This is the wall against which philosophers have been banging their head for 2500 years. Everyone wants to make a convincing argument for it, because hardly any philosophers want to resign themselves to thinking free will doesn't exist (fatalism). However, many feel that we still don't have a single compelling argument for the existence of free will.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#StaDetPhyThe | http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will | http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/ | http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/

Personally I enjoy entertaining a number of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ arguments. I think some of them make a pretty compelling attempt at the (mammoth) task of arguing for free will. However, plenty philosophers think compatibilism is rubbish, and fails in its goal of reconciling free will and determinism. So who knows?

As a philosopher-in-training (:lol:), the Free Will debate is one of the few issues I actually don't have any real opinion on. It's just so difficult to have a strong opinion because no matter what theory you go with, there's an equally compelling argument against it. You're dogged at every turn, no matter which way you go.

It's much better to forget about finding the 'truth', and simply enjoy the beauty, novelty and ingenuity of the theories.

Bah, double post again.

Okay, so you said it more eloquently than I did.
No surprises there





edit:
@ Zeno. Wasn't the double post an expression of your free will?
I thought it was :blush:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acky surprised that bossman spelled eloquently da rights way.
Me just copied it from up dere.. hur hur
And me likes da free willy. But da sequal sux

Agreed. After he freed 'willy' once, I prayed he would never remove his pants again.

Speaking of free will.. I had the choice during the movie to either run out of the theater, or barf in the neck of the person sitting infront of me (I had an upcoming flu bug)
I almost had the overwhelming urge to convey my criticisms about the movie by spewing on the walls or something as I ran out..
but I didn't, upbringing and the worries my liability insurance wouldn't cover it made me run od the toilets.

edit.
can't believe I wrote this and managed to technically stay on topic :blush:
yay me :celebration:

Virtually any topic can ultimately end up about 'willy'. Especially if you are Freud.

:rofl:
..and I'm learning not to read new posts with mouthfulls of coffee anymore, which is cutting down on my needs-to-clean-monitor actions

The real question is: do you really want to know?