soulofdarwin

Where does "freewill" lurk? I assume that the question is rhetorical, as, clearly, free will lurks only in the dimly lit recesses of the so-called minds of mystics.

"FREE WILL" is a quality of being that, other than in our own egocentric imaginings, simply does not exist. In reality, we are automatons, heuristic systems that exist in varied states, the sum of our instantaneous system requirements, our instantaneous system capability, and the external forces that bear upon us at every instant in time. Hence, what we do, think, and feel at every instant in time we could not do, think, or feel otherwise. Of course, because we are heuristic systems, our motivations can change over time, but only with new data and new evaluation of that data.

The chemical and electrical processes that give rise to our concious being occur at speeds that make our awareness of those processes impossible. We are left with a fuzzy awareness of "self" and "will" of which we suppose ourselves master. The realities of our physiology, which we are only now beginning to understand, will show otherwise, and, once more, mysticism will retreat before the sword of truth. In brief, we, just as everything else in this universe, are a random walk through space and time.

I believe that, with regard to the universe and its laws, nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman said it best with this understatement of the century just past: " . . . the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

For a discussion of the logical extension of this idea, I invite all interested parties to critique my thread "General Theorem of Existence" posted 6/1/03 in this forum.

Jet Grind

Just want to throw my $0.02 before the thread gets moved to the philosophy section of the board.

I do agree that human beings are nothing more than evolved machines designed by natural selection, and I don't honestly think that there is any such thing as a free will. I do however feel that at least "pretending" that we have some freedom of choice is important to morality. Neurologists could come out today and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we don't have free will and literally no one would accept it. Think about it, does anyone really act any different whether or not we have free will? I myself am simply not comfortable with the idea that I am an automation, so I pretend that I'm not. But according to science, I don't really have a choice whether or not to, and there really isn't a "me" to do so anyway. So I guess in the end none of it matters.

diana

Right-O. That sounds like a likely candidate.

Generally, SOD, we discuss free will here in relation to the attributes of God(s). What you have here appears to be more a study of what "free will" means, exactly. Philosophy sounds like a good home for it.

d

Carl Treetop

Hello SOD,

I read your General Theorem of Existence. Cool!

Two discussions on Free Will / Determinism took place here in March thru early May. The threads are on page 3: "Free Will vs. Determinism, who cares?" and "I believe there is no such thing as free will."

It appears that you can bring something new to the table. I don’t have much time lately, but would like to see more of your thoughts. If this thread needs a boost, perhaps you might go to the previous two threads and choose a couple of points with which take issue and respond to them here to get things rolling.

Carl

Carl Treetop

I agree that free will is an illusion. But I believe that just the realization of that truth causes a change in behavior in some situations. Ie: one's head messages concerning revenge and guilt would change. But we still operate according to the pleasure/pain principle so most behavior/choices would not change.

rjak

I am compelled to disagree with what seems to be the dominant theme here, which is to say that there is no free will. I believe in free will, though certainly in a limited sense. I believe in it not so much from a scientific standpoint, and I recognize that a scientific defense of free will is very difficult (Aldous Huxley tried and failed miserably in "Brave New World Revisited"). Instead, I believe in free will because without it, I am nothing. I cannot accept that the sum total of my existence is to be a sentient observer of events and actions that are entirely predetermined for me, as needs be the case if you reject free will. It may be true that free will does not exist, but I cannot accept it because I believe that humanity means something beyond being organic robots.

LeetJeebus

I feel I must agree that, although free will is not generally defensible, it is still important to the coherence of our culture and our species that we continue to act as if it were a truth. Otherwise, there would be no restraint in people's actions, no sense of responsibility for one's actions. The phrase "my chemical imbalances made me do it" comes to mind...

Pyrrho

I disagree. First of all, most people don't want to do many things, such as commit serial murder, so they are self-restraining. They are not likely to gain the desire to become a serial killer no matter whether they believe in "free will" or not (whatever is meant by the expression "free will"). The same idea applies to many other crimes. You evidently do not believe in "free will"; do you kill people randomly for pleasure because of it? Is there "no restraint" to what you do? Why, then, do you believe that others need to believe in "free will" in order for them to be "restrained"? Your claim that there will be "no restraint" if people don't believe in "free will" is simply false.

Second, right now, when someone is deemed "insane" (at least in the U.S.), they are not held to be responsible for their actions. This does not mean that they are free to continue as it pleases them; they are, in fact, locked up until they are deemed sufficiently "sane" to be released. The same idea would apply to anyone who claimed (and was believed) to have done their action due to a "chemical imbalance". It does not mean that such people would be free to continue as it pleases them.


It might be useful to consider what people might mean by the phrase "free will", which is something I previously discussed:


At:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=3

soulofdarwin

Neither can I. And the reason that I can't is because I reject the equivalence: Free Will = Predetermined

As heuristic systems we continually process new information and we are continually adjusting to that new information. Now we might be able to "predict" that, when we walk in the door in the evening, the dog will want to go out, or that, when the boss arrives in the morning, he will stop at Ed's desk, shake his head twice and go into his office. Actually, there is a whole lot of "predictable" stuff like that in our daily routines, and, as it turns out, that "predictability" brings a lot of stability and security to our being. On the other hand, when we get home we could find that the dog has died, an event that was impossible to predict. So, all of those "predictable" things are not really predictable at all, other than the fact that, with respect to them, fundamental laws of nature will not be violated. And, in fact, it is precisely the unpredictability of events that we encounter in the probabilistic realm of our existence that makes the journey worthwhile. No one can know what new idea, new person, new situation lies just ahead. And no one can know, not even ourselves, how those future events might shape our sensibilities and even our rational thinking. It is this unknown that brings excitement to our trip through space and time as organic robots.

The corollary is that, if you want more excitement, put yourself in new places, new situations. But, I suppose we have always known that.

Now, let me anticipate an argument. The foregoing is not a rejection of the statement that everything has causality. Certainly something caused the poor animal's death, perhaps old age. We might absentmindedly run a red light unscathed. Or, we might have entered that intersection one second later and been killed by a crossing vehicle. Assuming that we survived, we might conclude that our survival is due to that one-second interval of time. But, what are the precursor events leading to that one-second interval! On examination we find that the chain of causative events quickly fans out to the unfathomable, that we simply cannot determine the cause of the one-second interval that "saved us". So, while every event that we encounter has precursor events leading to it, i.e., a trail of causality, that trail is far too complex and convoluted to determine cause, making that cause and that event incapable of prediction from our frame of reference.

If anyone would like to attribute to deities such powers of understanding as to be capable of predicting every event within the time span of this universe, be my guest! Just don't assert an argument for that based on reason.

phil

does freewill exist? hmm.... good question.

First let's try to define freewill. The word 'freewill' is actually composed of 2 words 'free' and 'will' (I know, that was a very 'duh!' statement, but we can't take it for granted). In order to define 'freewill' we must define these 2 words. Here are 2 definitions:

FREE: "not bound or constrained" (The American Heritage Dictionary)

WILL: "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action." (The American Heritage Dictionary)

Now, do we use our mental faculties to decide upon a course of action? Hopefully all of you agree that we do. So we do have a will. If our will is the freedom to make choices, then to ask if we have freewill is to aks if freedom is free.

Most of us already know the answer to that question. All freedoms have some limitations. People in America have the freedom of free speech. However, it is illegal to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. Does this mean we don't have free speech? Of course not, but it does mean that we do not have COMPLETE free speech.

This is not a bad thing though, quite the opposite. Just think if we had complete freedom to do whatever we want and there were no laws against murder, rape, speeding, slander etc. America is great because it has freedom with boundaries, the same is true for our will.

We have the freedom to make decisions. However, every decision we make has a REASON. Our will has its boundaries at causality, which is GOOD! Imagine if the way you made decisions had no reason behind them!

Because our will is supported by reason we are accountable for our actions (a person can't say they broke the speed limit because they are an automaton). Our will will always act on the reason that is most compelling to us. Therefore, you must do your homework before you make a decision! Your action may be justified by your reason, but once you take a look at the bigger picture you may find it does not!

Do we have free will? No, in the sense that we don't have complete freedom. Yes, in the sense that we do make decisions, but our decision-making is limited in that there is a reason for every decision we make.

-phil