Free will

[d.Nox]

The way I see it--and I think this goes with what Jillian and Delicti have said--we can't escape free will, because we don't know what comes next. Choice, even if it's an illusion, is an illusion there's no way of escaping.

So, even assuming an omniscient god (or strict scientific determinism), it makes no difference to those of us not privy to god's viewpoint. I am faced with choices every second; and even if someone else knows every choice I'll make, I still have to make it, guided only by my limited understanding of what I'm doing and why.

Try living as if you had no free will. How do you know what choice you're fated to make, until you make it?

[Rae Ven Rae]

But if fate exists, really exists, in the manner in which men may believe it does, then the choices we make are predetermined, thereby they do not matter, thereby man has a limited will, and not a free one ...

...

[Rae Ven Rae]

Originally Posted by Methadrine

A free will? ofcourse.

I see it like this: If I have an apple on a table and I want to take the apple, I do it. Now, I did want to take it so I took it and even if it was something that made me take it,be it a divine intervention or something like a laid-out plan in advance which I have absolutely no control over, it doesn't matter. I percieved it as if it was me that decided that I wanted to take the apple, and it is the only thing that matters. What we percieve.

so.. once again, do we have a free will? Yes. In the reality we sense and act accordingly to, we have. No parental raising or government interference made me take the apple.

I see your point, but riddle me this--if your decision is directed by another, wouldn't that be considered manipulation and not free will, as in God has already determined your choice, so you didn't make it--

the choice is, in this regard, an illusion...

[Godslayer Jillian]

You're saying that free will is an illusion because you're assuming that fate is real.
But what proof is there that there's such a thing as fate?
I can understand determinism; but fate?

[Rae Ven Rae]

Oh I was playing devils advocate since fate almost always comes up in discussions about free will--I do not believe in fate, nor Gods who play us in like pawns in the ultimate contest of good and evil...

I just think there are so many societal consequences to action that we only have limited will, since choice is dependant upon consequences for choice...

[Clockwork]

I believe in fate.

For example, at this very moment (we'll call this Time A) you can look at past events - things you were doing a minute ago, a year ago, historical events spanning centuries back. The past does not change, it is not unclear; it is what it is, and you know this because you've witnessed it, or there are records.

But what is the past, other than any given point in time? The only thing that makes it the past is perspective - it is the past because you're looking back on it. You can only look back on time, but it is what it is. Just as you can look at an apple on a table from different perspectives, the apple will not change, though your viewpoint might.

Think now that, after this speculation, an hour passes, and it is now Time B. You are once again reflecting on the past. The past is still perfectly clear, isn't it? Only now, as you have drifted through time, one more hour is clearly visible, and all the events between Time A and B are known to you. An hour ago, at Time A, you might have said the then-future is NOT set in stone. But if it isn't, then when it is Time B and you are looking in the past, by that logic the PAST wouldn't be set in stone! Just because you can't see the other side of the apple, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Time is merely perspective, and it is absolute. That is why I say fate exists.

[Miss Cogs]

Prefectly put together Clockwork, if I might say so myself. You make this a very good viewpoint and I believe what you have written in here. The apple example was a very good choice to use, in deed.

[d.Nox]

Godslayer Jillian wrote:
I can understand determinism; but fate?

Seems to me they're the same thing under different names; determinism is just the educated way of saying it.

[Rae Ven Rae]

I agree d.nox, perhaps good Jillian would elaborate his position on the difference between determinism and fate--I know fate is a more romantic word, but how do the two ideals differ...

Keep in mind, I do not believe in either concept my friends, but it would be interesting to hear...

And I have to say, I am impressed, once again, by the arguments in this thread --you guys are rawking my socks on this one and forcing me to hone my sophist skills...lol...

[Reikikuro]

I believe that there is no free will. First you are raised by your parents/parental figures by the time you were born. They teach you everything that you know and understand in early childhood. by the way you learn and your specific perspective on the world you develop your personality based on what you learn through trial and error.

lets say as a baby, everytime you see a bunny, someone makes a loud surprising noise. After a while you'll expect that noise everytime you see a bunny. That expectation developes into emotion. You become afraid of that disturbance making you afraid of rabbits. That is a programmed reaction in your persona created by your environment.

Secondly on the matter of making choices. I agree with renatus. the choice you make could be a result based on a previous experience. If as a child your mother makes spagetti but it tastes horrible. That first influence could cause you to not like spagetti for the rest of you life. If your mother made that horrible spagetti a lot, you would grow to loathe it. So when your out with your date many years later, you choose to eat the fish instead of spagetti.

In other words, choices are based on past experiences. Personal experience is a product of your environment. You are a product of your environment.

Yes I am a behaviorist.

P.S. Thanks for the correction Clockwork

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Rae Ven Rae

I agree d.nox, perhaps good Jillian would elaborate his position on the difference between determinism and fate--I know fate is a more romantic word, but how do the two ideals differ...

I will.
There's a big difference, actually. They have the same results, but since when is philosophy about what works and not what is? (except for utilitarianism and pragmatism, of course)
The difference in fate and determinism is the tense.
Fate is an abstract that denies free will because things are going to happen as they should happen. The fact that there's a predetermined future denies choice, just as observation screws the cat box.
Determinism is a concept that denies free will because of cause and effect. Everything that happens, happens because it's the logical thing to happen based on everything else. Even the most spontaneous outburst could have been predicted if we knew all the variables and all the events that have happened up to this moment.
In fate, the future denies free will.
In determinism, the past denies free will.

In any case I don't believe in either. As I said, I believe that with a guided process of self-observation, one can go past his own social indoctrination. When you accept your personality was only the outcome of your circumstances, and try to go past those circumstances, you do change in some aspects.

[HumanePain]

Try getting a 2 year old to go to bed on time. He doesn't want to because he exercises free will. Now even though you are the adult and have full power and authority to make him go to bed, he will resist because of free will. So free will does exist.

You have to force him against his will to make him go to bed.
(But if you're smart, you will read him a story. )

In regards to the "past determines the future of the individual" argument:
You have the same person, with his same molecules and same environment, say, the office. For five days in a row, he will get hungry at lunch time. OK, so he seems to be a victim of fate so far. But even though he is in the same environment, and is composed of the same molecules, the sequence of electrical impulses discharge across different synapses and he decides to eat tacos on Monday, and Tuesday eat Thai food. So free will again exists, independent of the location and direction of previous states of matter.

[d.Nox]

Jillian:

I like your distinction between the mechanisms of fate and determinism; it's as clear as one could hope for. That being said, it's one of the issues on which I think the pragmatic viewpoint is necessary.

That is, for all their theoretical differences, there's no concievable experiment that could distinguish fate from determinism. In this case, asking which one is more true is meaningless. They're like the "hello" and "hola": different words, defined in different languages, but meaning the same thing.

Of course, since neither you nor I believe in either of them, this post was pretty meaningless as well.

[Reikikuro]

Well thanks for calling it meaningless. I put it up for fun. I actually like to discuss philosophical concepts. It may have been "meaningless" to you, but I walked away with a couple different aspects to contemplate and quite possibly change my perspective.

[Drake Dun]

It wasn't intended in a hostile way. The point I was trying to make was that the problem, as is so often the case, is in the question.

To elaborate: before you can give a strong answer to a question like "do we have free will", you need to figure out what you mean by "we" and "free will". Try that, and you'll quickly discover that the whole free will thing is basically another instantiation of the mind/body problem.

Actually, there have been some nice responses in the thread. Sorry for giving the question short shrift.

Drake

[HumanePain]

Ah yes! I think you have found the problem Drake: Some responses in this thread indicate that the responder believes free will is defined as beginning from a "sterile" psychological and physical state: an impossibility. We all have some past. No one comes from a "sterile" enough background to claim they have exercised true free will according to this definition.

As for myself: I think in relative terms (Einstein relativity) so that the individual's frame of reference need not be compared to a time 30 minutes after birth in terms of past influence on free will. That past time no longer exists, the individual is now older and in THIS time frame, so events in the "recent" frame of reference may influence him, but older ones may be irrelevant.

I was raised to be afraid of death, to be afraid of skeletons and coffins, but I overcame that upbringing through free will (as I define it) and have come to embrace the beauty and mystery of it all. Thus the past as a controller of the will can be overcome through exercising free will.

[d.Nox]

To take a different tack, I've read various people who believe that free will can best be defined in terms of taking personal responsibility for your actions, whether or not those actions are predetermined.

In other words: I have free will to the extent that I say of myself "I did X willingly, even though events pushed me to it."

Under this definition, free will is not an absolute--you can have it at some times and not at others; some may never have it. Which begs the question why anyone would want free will in the first place. Short answer: because we don't want to be spineless objects, tossed about by the universe. Because we want some dignity, even if we use it to fuck up continually.

I'm not sure what I think of this theory. What hidden consequences follow? Any thoughts?

[thedoll]

no, from the moment we're born we have been programmed to act a certain way.

[d.Nox]

How could we have been, when each of us will encounter situations which no human has seen before? Neither genes nor culture can program for the infinite variations of real life.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Reikikuro

lets say as a baby, everytime you see a bunny, someone makes a loud surprising noise. After a while you'll expect that noise everytime you see a bunny. That expectation developes into emotion. You become afraid of that disturbance making you afraid of rabbits. That is a programmed reaction in your persona created by your environment.

Kind of like Little Albert, eh? Aye, I too lean heavily towards behaviorism. I agree with Humane; none of us are without a past, none of us lived through a sterile time frame. We live through a chain of causes and effects, and I believe those go so far as to directly influence all of our decisions.

Originally Posted by Jillian

In fate, the future denies free will.
In determinism, the past denies free will.

I'm glad you clarified that; in that case, I'd have to say I'm for determinism, and not fate. Put in that context, fate is a superstition, and completely incompatible. Yet I'm curious:

I believe that with a guided process of self-observation, one can go past his own social indoctrination. When you accept your personality was only the outcome of your circumstances, and try to go past those circumstances, you do change in some aspects.

(You've probably considered this already, but I want to know your thoughts) - if you decided to proceed with this self-examination, wouldn't it have been because events prompted you to do it? For example, you might have done this for the very purpose of establishing your grasp on free will, once you were acquainted with the question of its existence. If you try to get past the circumstances after accepting your personality is only an outcome of them, as you said, aren't you only making the decision based on that acceptance? I don't think you've really escaped it at all. I think strings of variables long in the making led to your decision.

Of course, anything might have prompted the self-observation, but I think you get the idea. Hopefully I've made myself clear.

Originally Posted by d.Nox

In other words: I have free will to the extent that I say of myself "I did X willingly, even though events pushed me to it."

I'm not keen to the idea of it shifting from one to the other, but rather it being both at once. That is, we make the decisions that most appeal to us, based upon the present circumstances.
I think that works. I'm trying to find fallacies with it...

[d.Nox]

Clockwork wrote:

I'm not keen to the idea of it shifting from one to the other, but rather it being both at once. That is, we make the decisions that most appeal to us, based upon the present circumstances.
I think that works. I'm trying to find fallacies with it...

Not a fallacy in my mind, but "we make the decisions" seems to imply that we have some choice in the matter, which from the rest of the post I think you didn't mean.

Which is I think the point--even if the universe runs like a clock, none of us can live that way. Try as you like to prove that all of your decisions are predetermined, it doesn't change the fact that you have to live as if they weren't, and you're making it up as you go along.

Free will doesn't require that you are or ever were a tabula rasa; it just means that at every moment, you're taking part in creating the universe of the next moment, and that you're aware of your part in doing so. I think.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Something prompted you to attempt a process of self-observation, but it doesn't determine what that process of self-observation will come out with, if it's deep enough. When you question all of your beliefs, and evaluate them, and you realize you've changed, then you're free of the strings that guided you before.
In any case, in the belief of determinism, I would like to add that anyone with a deterministic point of view should nonetheless take responsibility of his own actions, because if your circumstances led you to a certain direction, that direction doesn't end with the act.

[HellforgedX]

"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill,
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will."

[Geist]

Some very smart folks in here. In my humble opinion, God is monistic in nature and therefore our lives are completely predetermined. We were created to serve out a purpose. Our lives are on railroad tracks and we can't deviate from our course. In the end, we will have become exactly what we were designed in the mind of God to be at the begining of the universe. We only have the illusion of freewill, the illusion of possibility. Without that illusion, we would become psychologically unstable. Even me. I believe what I have just said, but I live my life as if I had a choice in the things I do.

[Corpsey]

Geist, if that statement is true, then how can we punish criminals? They were destined to commit their crime, so we cannot punish them. We are cannot be held responsible for our actions if that is true.

I too think fate does play a bit in the world, there are so many times where I think "If only this had happened, then things in my life would so be completely different". I almost never existed due to my parents actions. There is fate to some extent, I believe but not to such a length that everything that we will do for the rest of our lives is set in concrete.