Soldato
FREE WILL He's innocent!
Free will - Truth or Illusion?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
Soldato
If you repeatedly drop a ball under identical conditions it will always fall downwards and bounce in the same way. It does this because it's motion is governed by the laws of physics. The forces which are dominant in this case are simple enough that we have the ability (to a large extent) to predict this motion. It's path is predetermined. It has no free will.
All of our thoughts and actions are governed by a complex combination of physical and chemical reactions which are also governed by the laws of physics. We lack the ability to predict the results of these complex interactions to any meaningful extent but our path is predetermined in the same way as that of the ball and we also have no free will but given our inability to model and predict future behaviour accurately we have the illusion of free will and an indeterminate path. With sufficiently accurate models of the interactions between particles, enough computing power and an accurate set of starting conditions you could theoretically predict the future of the entire universe.
Last edited:
Yes, this is true. Except for the times when the criteria present choices. And that we are able to consciously choose unfavoured options in order to influence future favoured unconscious choices.
I can choose to not drink the bottle of whisky I have in the kitchen. Despite part of me thinking it would be a good idea. The reason I don't do it is the knowledge that it probably wouldn't be good idea and could easily become (even more) habit forming.
It would be far more likely that I would drink the bottle whiskey if I'd spent the last few years drinking bottles of whisky in the afternoon.
It's a riddle inside an enigma.
Even if it is an illusion, it matters little as it is the perception of free will which decides how we practically judge how our actions are determined on an individual and social level.
Ultimately I think we are constrained by a combination of factors across a range of circumstances including social and physical barriers over which we have little control, there is also the limits set by our genetic and ethical make-up, all of which influence our decision making to varying degrees and by varying levels of determinism, so we have Free Will, but bound within certain causal barriers.
I think that both sides of the argument are correct and its only a matter of perception and definition.
Ultimately I think we are constrained by a combination of factors across a range of circumstances including social and physical barriers over which we have little control, there is also the limits set by our genetic and ethical make-up, all of which influence our decision making to varying degrees and by varying levels of determinism, so we have Free Will, but bound within certain causal barriers.
I think that both sides of the argument are correct and its only a matter of perception and definition.
This will probably be dismissed but....
http://now.dartmouth.edu/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-for-free-will/
He also speaks about quantum events having an effect in the brain which seems likely to me. Randomness meets criteria and future planning.
I really dont understand how anyone can look at life, look at the brain and not understand what it is. People are not rocks.
http://now.dartmouth.edu/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-for-free-will/
He also speaks about quantum events having an effect in the brain which seems likely to me. Randomness meets criteria and future planning.
I really dont understand how anyone can look at life, look at the brain and not understand what it is. People are not rocks.
Soldato
It seems to structure free-will as in existing in part via our consideration & thoughts to alter future events - but doesn't account for where those considerations or thoughts come from.
The fact concious contemplation impacts of future decision making, isn't what I'd say would be compelling evidence for free-will - as this is fully able to occur if free will existed or not (as if the source of those thoughts & contemplations is the result of randomness, or even arising via our sub-conscious (which we have no control over).
The other factor is, what predictive capability does "free will" really have?, how does the theory of free will allow for better predictions of human behaviour (because so far, genetics, environment
& epigenetic gene expression seem pretty good judges of future behaviour for most of the population).
I don't think a mid-way acceptance or simply going by perception is really viable, I mean - it either does exist or it doesn't.
Pending on what turns out to be factual on the above (which hopefully the science will be able to determine) - it has very real consequences for our social system.
I was recently watching the TED talk on death row in-mates & human behaviour, he was discussing how similar the life story's are of a majority of the people on death row.
One person in particular, a man named Will.
By the time he was 9 his dad had already left him & his mum had been institutionalised for attempting to murder him with a kitchen knife - shortly after his older brother who had been looking after him had killed himself with a gunshot to the heart.
After living alone for most of his young childhood (11+) he ended up in a gang, got involved in criminal activity & ended up murdering somebody.
In a world which cherishes free will, he was a agent acting on his own volition, in a world without free will he was the victim of a terrible upbringing & ended up committing a terrible act & creating another victim.
As Harris points out, if we notice a person has a brain tumour which alters behaviour - we don't judge them to be really "responsible" for their behaviour, we view them as victims of physiology.
If it turns out that behaviour is simply the result of the same kind of standard physical laws, then in theory we should apply the same kind of logic.
Also, before anybody else jumps down my throat, this isn't about excusing - in a world without free will, people will still be locked up (for the safety of others) - but retribution as a concept no longer makes sense.
Really, I don't think an argument has to be formed against free will - as people like myself are not suggesting something exists - simply that a concept which is unsubstantiated by evidence is flawed.
On a side note, do supports of free will believe animals have a free will?.
That's pretty much how I view it.
The beauty of it is, it explains allot - as to why people behave in such ways that are detrimental to the self, or how the individual wishes they were.
It's also a great theory as it doesn't propose the existence of something which requires it's own justification.
Last edited:
Yes. (A certain level of sentience is required to act beyond base instinct, one assumes.) Cats and dogs, for example, have free will to act as they choose. Their choices will be affected strongly by their instinct, conditioning and training, but they're still free to act as they choose.
Last edited:
I think it is the only viable position. How Free-Will is defined is entirely subjective and is dependent upon the subjective perception of the observer. Until there is some universally accepted and substantiated definition of Free-Will then it is the only viable and objective position to take in my opinion.
I wouldn't put so much faith in Harris either, his opinion is but one in a myriad of opposing opinions and while he raises some valid discussion points I would not base my entire opinion on his....the example of the 9 year old boy is a case in point, I could have been that boy, yet my own decisions, made despite my circumstances ultimately determined my course, now was that predetermined by unknowable factors? Or did I make a conscious choice independent of those unknowable factors....does it really matter? Was it a combination of both, did those unknowable factors influence, not determine my ultimate choices and did my choices influence and determine those unknowable factors?
In all cases ultimately I consciously made a decision, or set of decisions based on preset conditions and conditions determined by my former actions that set my path....and continue to do so. This is why I feel that our actions are both constrained by factors outside of our control at the same time as exercising control over our actions.
Last edited:
Even within the last few posts, and quoted articles, there are vastly different definitions being argued. kaiowas suggested that there is no free will because, with sufficient computing power, the physical and chemical reactions of the human brain could be predicted. elmarko quoted the case of the man on death row whose "free will" was under question due to conditioned behaviour from his upbringing and life experience. These are two completely different concepts!
Soldato
I didn't imply the death row case was related to free will directly, just that the concept of "free will" matters in cases such as that (which obviously the environmental differences make a huge difference regardless of any inner workings of the brain).
Our judgement of human behaviour changes greatly pendent on how we view "free will", ranging from the absolute, to the mid-ground or to viewing ourself in a mechanised sense.
Even if free will did exist, it only exists within our genetic & environmental restraints (which is already a concession onto the idea which many take at face value).
I do agree that many different definitions exist, which is why on the free will side - I tend to go for the definition "the concious source of your thoughts & actions" - as if our thoughts lead to actions & our thoughts come into being from our sub-concious - I'm unsure where the free part is.
A very good point.
But I do hope in time a consensus of meaning can be arrived at for a number of reasons.
To better allow us to understand human behaviour with the hopes & intentions or reducing the occurrence of negative & harmful behaviour (causing objective harm or human suffering).
Also, to really examine how valid concepts just as revenge, justice, good & evil really are - do we view people who do things we hate as people who make decisions to do terrible things?, or as people who are just victims of being themselves?, much of our current "work ethic" or even entire sides of political ideologies are entrenched into this idea - I'd say it does have quite wide social consequences pending on what the actual truth of the matter (whatever it turns out to be).
Last edited:
Personally I don't believe that environmental conditioning is related to sentient free will at all. Your upbringing, environment and life experiences all contribute to your decision making process - so that someone who's had a rough life will make vastly different choices to someone who's been brought up with money and loving parents - but the choice is still made freely.
As above, I don't think this is a free will issue. If you've been brought up with gangs and crime as a way of life, your behaviour will be based on that input. The choice is still yours, it's just that the information you're working from leads to decisions that the rest of society would classify as undesirable.
(All views are my own, etc.)
Those concepts are also subjective..how a person determines Justice, Revenge, Good and Evil is dependent upon their own perception.
The point about behaviour being based on environment etc doesn't mean that a person cannot make an independent decision despite those factors rather than because of them..this to me implies that an individual has the ability to exercise free will within the constraints of their physical and mental abilities.
Soldato
Couldn't have worded it better myself.
Regardless as to if free will exists, as a whole society hugely under-estimates the impact of genetics & environment on personal development (which in part reduces the amount of "blame" which can be applied).
It's akin to making a house out of cardboard & sand - then blaming the house for falling down.
Indeed, but there is a difference between independent factors influencing decision making and those factors determining the decision making. This is why I think that we have a combination of both. This holds for both the individual and the collective dependent upon their subjective criteria and how it is applied practically.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 135
You can only have free will if time flows from the past to the future.
We perceive that it does, though thats not the only possibility....
What if time flows in the opposite direction and we only perceive that it flows from past to future, this would result in a universe that has (in part) already happened and is in the process of unhappening, and our actions have in effect already occured and therefore you have no free will, ...because you already undid it
now i have some acid to untake....ciao
We perceive that it does, though thats not the only possibility....
What if time flows in the opposite direction and we only perceive that it flows from past to future, this would result in a universe that has (in part) already happened and is in the process of unhappening, and our actions have in effect already occured and therefore you have no free will, ...because you already undid it
now i have some acid to untake....ciao