User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do we have Free Will? Or is Everything Determined?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we have free will.

    6 54.55%
  • No, everything is determined.

    3 27.27%
  • Everything is determined by free will.

    1 9.09%
  • Everything is random and beyond control.

    1 9.09%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 50

  1. #11
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Everyone has free will except those who have relinquished it by limiting themselves to predeterminism, whether ordered or chaotic.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Disclaimer: I didn't read anything written above, except the thread title.

    That said, we know we don't know enough to know whether or not we have free will.

    That said, would you do anything differently either way?

  3. #13
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    First off, I am aware of the research that states that ideas are formed around 300 milliseconds (or whatever the exact number is) before they reach consciousness, and I understand the concept of biological determinism.
    I understand that in terms of physiology we differ biologically from other animals only in the details.
    I also understand that recent research has shown that animals possess consciousness (although this is obvious to any human who is owned by a dog), and that our own self awareness can be seen as an extension of this naturally occurring phenomenon. Again, we differ from animals in degree.
    However, I find the ridged adherence to biological determinism to have missed the most salient point: that human consciousness is not only different in degree, but also in kind. The works of Einstein, Newton, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Nietzsche, Curie, Schumann, Gandhi, Darwin, Beethoven, Verdi, Yousafzai, etc, etc, are not the product of biological processes directly, but of are merely underpinned by them. There is no biological necessity for the theory of relativity, or a symphony, or great works of kindness, or most other things that are uniquely human.
    As a person who can feel and think and is conscious, I also find biological determinism to be anti-social. It may feel comforting to sum up all human activity in this way, it may seem as if the unsettling vagaries of life and the world are somehow obviated by this kind of ‘willful’ (sic) reduction of possibilities to mere processes, but in the end, it produces nothing that extends humanity or enriches it, or increases understanding or civility. It is rather a call to Machiavellian self-interest, to dog-eat-dog politics and violence (which of course, we see as natural). I prefer to think more of my species and the individuals in it as more than animals with self interest maximizers at the top of our spines.
    Gratuitous smiley:

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alcea rosea View Post
    In my opinion, certain roads are determined but choice between the roads is given to us. So, I think people have certain amount of free will and freedom of choice but there are also coincidences, things that happen no matter if you want them to happen or not. These coincideces could also be said to be things that are determined for us. So, I believe some things are given to us and some things we can decide.
    This makes a lot of sense. Maybe we can't choose our contexts quite so much as we can choose what we do within those contexts, at least at our current level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scheherezade View Post
    free will is not real, to be blunt, but if you consider free will the commencement in the brain of the process of a decision that you consider to be an expression of your free will, then indeed it is free will
    Okay, so I guess you think that our own mental actions move us, even if those operations were determined by a prior cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Bubble View Post
    No, it is most likely illusory. Mechanisms in the brain are based on particle interaction through electrochemical processes. As such, like Hawking states in the quote below, we are governed by the laws of physics just like every other object in the universe. Sense of free will emerges due to the vast amount of factors that impact any given situation or state, most of which are not perceivable directly.
    Indeed, it is too complex to map out, but that doesn't mean it's all destined beforehand to go absolutely one way with 100% conclusiveness.

    The laws of physics are already determined. All that is needed now is a set of previous conditions that will influence the next state. We cannot know all the many parts of the previous condition, which is why it feels like we are free, when in actual fact the previous conditions determine the next event in a very specific way which is inevitable.
    Keep in mind that knowing the fundamental laws of the universe doesn't mean we can apply them for a case study of every object in space, but it could give us very accurate clues as to the overall structure of the entire cosmos and where it's destined on a broad level to evolve.

    An individuals personality, exact placement of particles in the brain, and millions of environmental factors all play a part. It feels like choice, but it's really the sheer amount of factors that go into the initial (previous) state that add together to create the exact outcome. If you are outside somewhere with a cricket ball, for instance, and you wonder whether to throw it across the field or not, it isn't really your choice. If you do throw it, that's because many conditions triggered that response, and if you don't, it's because of the same reason. Even the thought that predicated the "choice" was created through physical/electrochemical interactions, subject to other external physical systems.
    I think you're right about purely physical systems being entirely determined, but that doesn't mean there aren't "meta"-physical systems out there that may act under different laws that are perhaps even subject to alteration. Perhaps metaphysics may play a part in what physical forms we assume upon our incarnations (if you believe in that stuff).

    There's just so many factors that are incorporated into the initial state. Think of science experiments. They are overly simplified and isolated in comparison to an entire present state, but it's the same principle. If the setup is exactly the same each time, the end result will also be the same. (Not taking into account outside influences such as air humidity etc.)
    This is because we can count on the same precedents applying in every case; that's why we can formulate laws. Of course, I've always seen laws as something to be broken (and then reconstructed into new forms). That's philosophy however, and not physics as we currently know it.

    I should also mention that just because free will is an illusion, it doesn't mean that the universe is completely determined. Even if God plays dice, we are still not in control of them. Or perhaps it is determined, and the whole universe was set out to go precisely in a single direction from the initial state of the BB, but QM makes this unlikely.
    It's good to see you considering alternative possibilities here; it seems like you think it's possible that random quantum events can allow for a bit of contingency, but that it still operates independently of our wills - and since our wills can't (under your view) control them, then we might as well just say that we don't have free will, as we can't determine events, let alone self-determine our own actions.

    This quote is in regards to quantum mechanics, not free will. Even in the seemingly free-will-accommodating paradigm of QM, we are still subject to the laws of it, which are so minuscule in its effects relative to our scale that it is almost irrelevant on most occasions. Hawking actually believes that free will is nonexistent. To quote from The Grand Design:
    Yes, I remember reading the Grand Design 3 years ago. Both of those fellas seem to have similar views and ways of thinking to yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Lets put it this way, if during the big bang something would had been just slightly different, at least some particular atom somewhere wouldnt had formed like it did. So that small difference which one atom has isnt that relevant during that time when it happened to the overall picture of things. However that small difference of one atom would most likely had made something different because the atoms interaction with other atoms would had happened differently. Basically the whole thing is just one big chain reaction that spreads wider and wider, and even subtle differences to some of those reactions at one point might get amplified over time and one difference of an atom might cause whether the star had formed where all the gold in our known universum is from was ever formed or not and without gold there might not even be earth as we know it(since there is quite a lot of gold in our planets core which most likely has at least some small effect on earths magnetic fields and our whole civilization would had gone differently is that gold wasnt there).
    As I've said before, your logic often overwhelms my mind. I think though that you're depicting the "Butterfly Effect" (small changes lead to big consequences) in detail.

    So if something would had gone even slightly differently during the big bang, at least something in our current world would be different. Even if there are some form or multiverse thing going on, that wouldnt rule out the fact that everything which now exists, exists and is the way it is because things were as they were during the big bang or some multibang or what ever. Even if there is some big bearded guy over the clouds who knows magix, the reasons for it being are caused by similar chain reaction which i explained.
    Your big bearded guy, or "God" you seem to think is also subject to laws above his own powers, that of course (in your view) predetermine what God determines to do with our universe, which in turn predetermines what we want to determine with our own willpower.

    TLDR version: yes all your thoughts are physical reactions to begin with and the physical reactions which caused your thoughts were dictated by the big bang.
    But we don't know if the brain is the sole source of our life force; I know that we can stimulate the brain to make us do things, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of say a spirit in negative matter or whatever giving our brains (receivers) commands. Just like technology can be a controller for the brain, so to could our "higher selves" be guiding our brains.

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    The quantic dyanamicism of the human mind broke the universe free of its tether!
    This view sounds more promising; you're allowing for the idea of "breaking chains" (a possibility the above posters were more closed off from).

    I used to like that concept, that the universe was open to future possibility but closed once past - that was my zipper of reality theory.
    I myself still subscribe to this theory (even if you don't anymore), but I'm not sure a zipper is the best metaphor; maybe it's more of a "multi-faceted crystallization".

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    In regards to humanity: We have free will. Saying otherwise is rationalizing away blame and consequence of actions. "The universe made me do it!" Etc
    Yes, it would seem more rational to act as if we do have free will, regardless of whether or not (or at what level) we actually have it.

    If you want to talk about the free will of physics... Then no.
    Physical mechanisms by themselves are in bondage, but perhaps metaphysical forces could act on the physical.

    But as always there are obvious cause and effects. Become a magical vat of pudding and the only outcome is to be consumed by gluttonous forces.
    Your reference to "pudding" (which can be shaped) may actually capture much more than you think it does. It's like there's a formless material before ourselves, some kind of wishing well or pool that can transform into any entity imaginable (and substances like this aren't exclusively solid; they can take other states and assume more "floaty" forms).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I talked about it a while ago with the late erm: here.
    Okay, well I guess I can springboard this to the idea of whether or not the past is determined. Maybe reality has various "save files", kind of like how in video games they can be repeatedly accessed to get different results upon directing the game with alternative commands. That's just a random idea; I'm not saying it has any basis in reality - but then again, we really don't know!

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    Everyone has free will except those who have relinquished it by limiting themselves to predeterminism, whether ordered or chaotic.
    This simple statement is fairly elegant - willpower is all about tenaciously handling ideas that we envision and seizing the moment to mobilize new actions made immanent, transforming old worlds and making new ones spring into being. Of course, to move mountains, we have to believe that it can be done, even if it takes eons for its accomplishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by mingularity View Post
    Disclaimer: I didn't read anything written above, except the thread title.
    Freedom used with little effort and full honesty is better that little effort and no honesty - at least under the former, there is promise for improvement and a respect for truth.

    That said, we know we don't know enough to know whether or not we have free will.
    I am in complete agreement with you here. We're still way too ignorant to have definitive conclusions that can actually describe our cosmos with full clarity of vision.

    That said, would you do anything differently either way?
    Well, if we did actually discover the existence of free will at any level, surely we could harness some tricks in its arsenal, whereas if we went on ignorant about it and/or free will were nonexistent, then our horizons will remain clouded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    First off, I am aware of the research that states that ideas are formed around 300 milliseconds (or whatever the exact number is) before they reach consciousness, and I understand the concept of biological determinism.
    I understand that in terms of physiology we differ biologically from other animals only in the details.
    I also understand that recent research has shown that animals possess consciousness (although this is obvious to any human who is owned by a dog), and that our own self awareness can be seen as an extension of this naturally occurring phenomenon. Again, we differ from animals in degree.
    However, I find the ridged adherence to biological determinism to have missed the most salient point: that human consciousness is not only different in degree, but also in kind. The works of Einstein, Newton, Tolstoy, Michelangelo, Nietzsche, Curie, Schumann, Gandhi, Darwin, Beethoven, Verdi, Yousafzai, etc, etc, are not the product of biological processes directly, but of are merely underpinned by them. There is no biological necessity for the theory of relativity, or a symphony, or great works of kindness, or most other things that are uniquely human.
    As a person who can feel and think and is conscious, I also find biological determinism to be anti-social. It may feel comforting to sum up all human activity in this way, it may seem as if the unsettling vagaries of life and the world are somehow obviated by this kind of ‘willful’ (sic) reduction of possibilities to mere processes, but in the end, it produces nothing that extends humanity or enriches it, or increases understanding or civility. It is rather a call to Machiavellian self-interest, to dog-eat-dog politics and violence (which of course, we see as natural). I prefer to think more of my species and the individuals in it as more than animals with self interest maximizers at the top of our spines.
    Gratuitous smiley:
    This is a great testament in favor of having faith in higher causes, of acting with the force and feeling of our true character. This is the "I am that I am", the personal God of love. With the power of love on our side, anything is possible!

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    I would say individuality doesn't exist and our particles are enslaved to the whims of quantum mechanics; whatever it pops into existence becomes our new master. No free will and no pre-determinism.

  6. #16
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    It seems like quantum mechanics is the layman's refuge for whacky beliefs, looking at the way some of you and OP's link talk about it.

  7. #17
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    But we don't know if the brain is the sole source of our life force; I know that we can stimulate the brain to make us do things, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of say a spirit in negative matter or whatever giving our brains (receivers) commands. Just like technology can be a controller for the brain, so to could our "higher selves" be guiding our brains.
    Brain isnt the source of life force, mostly its the sun and stuff that sun and supernovas has provided here, but sun etc. had its own source of life force and so did other things leading to all this since the big bang or what ever was the thing that made all this. Brain just some organ in the process of this universe that makes all sorts of funny stuff possible :P . And that spirit thing is this energy flowing in time and space.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    @INTP again, I must bow down before the greatness of your superior logic!

    I'm quite amused (and a bit annoyed) by when you bring up all of these (at least to me) unimportant logical contradictions made on my part that don't even deal with the point I was referring to.

    When I speak of a life force, I mean that part of us beyond the matter. As far as the brain being a source goes, it simply tunes in; perhaps it's actually appropriate to call God the source of it all - and from that perspective, your point has some value I would think. But still, only primitive savages and superstitious fools would consider the sun to be their almighty God, Lord and Savior!

  9. #19
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    None of the above

    I believe in compatibilism or soft determinism. I think determinism and freewill coexist.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #20
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    When I speak of a life force, I mean that part of us beyond the matter.
    Yes, but that imo that life force is the same force that is beyond matter;
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-11-2011, 06:39 PM
  2. Do you have J-dar and is it reliable?
    By compulsiverambler in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-17-2009, 06:37 PM
  3. Do we have the right to manipulate and destory nature?
    By Nyx in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 08:16 AM
  4. Do we perceive it because it is meaningful? Yes!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 05:52 PM
  5. Do we have a "right" to the organs of the dead?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-23-2007, 05:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO