Popular Science
Is free will just an illusion?
User Comments
-
Does it matter?-
Does it matter if it doesn't matter?
-
-
Well, if there is no free will, how can you be accountable for your decisions?-
if your not accountable for your decisions, then why do people get put i prison? they did the things they did because it was destiny, so they shouldn't be punished for crimes that were supposed to happen anyway.
of course this topic can go into more detail when the theory of parallel dimensions come into play.. -
Most people (not me) think free will exists, so no problem here...
Personally, I don't believe in free will. I believe in casual determinism. Causal determinism claims that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. In principle, if I would to know all the facts about the past, the present, and all the natural laws that govern the universe, I would be able to use this knowledge in order to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail. The illusion of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate something that looks like infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there was a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behaviour would become predictable.
But even I think it's ok to punish them. First, it does not matter if this criminal is responsible for his decision. The fact is that his mind reached the point where crime seems like a possible solution to a problem. This is one dangerous brain walking around, so it should be locked up. Second, by putting this man behind bars, it will make other brains fear this punishment, reducing crime level. Finally, I think human society can not function correctly when people are not presumed responsible for their choices, even if it’s not actually true. -
As long as I believe that free will exists, whether it's an illusion or not, what difference does it make since I will base my decisions on the belief that it does.
-
I think free will does exist but is only demonstrably exercised when its used to buck the tide of events.
History - up to and including what happened a nanosecond ago - creates a force or pressure that moves us along through time. That history limits choices we can make that will generate a desirable outcome.
When people exercise free will to take risks by choosing to follow a path that fights against the press of history that choice 'lights up' to all humans who learn about it. Books, the news media, plays, and blog posts all tend to focus on acts of free will of this sort. We all hear about the people who make brave choices and succeed or fail -it doesn't matter which. This applies to criminals who decide to rob a liquor store equally as well as to paraplegics who decide that they are going to not use a wheel chair, acquire custom prosthetic legs, and run a marathon. Both are using their free will to make choices that are the opposite of the choices most of us make in choosing NOT to rub a liquor store. Most paraplegics do not run marathons and most citizens do not rob liquor stores.
What we don't hear about are people who use free will to make or accept decisions that "go with the flow". A woman buying a bottle of wine is not news except to herself; a decent, but not outstanding runner, who takes part in the Boston marathon and finishes in the middle of the back is not newsworthy.
Whether our criteria for selecting what is and is not newsworthy is a cmpletely separate discussion. -
I think free will is innate in all thinking beings. Although the concept of free will and determinism may be meaningless in a mechnistic universe of cuase and effect, but it may make some sense in a universe that is governed by probability. A rational mind can grasp probability and thus can make informed(although limited)decisions. Even unconcious objetcs are not absolutely predertermined. Even if the options are very narrow or limited, free will still exists as long as the mind exists. Denying free will is tantamount to denying the mind. -
A molecule does not have free-will simply because it cannot direct itself into conscious actions. Hence, a molecule is largely determined by external laws. However, this is not the case with the mind. The mind is conscious and it can self-direct. I would define free-will as the ability to rationally contemplate options. Even when there are very limited options, free will exists as long as rational consciousness exists. The mind might just be a product of neuro-chemical activities but it is not a mechanistic or deterministic as it may seem.
-
@rlowe
My thoughts on the justice system in what I think is a deterministic environment.
Just because criminal laws are in place as if people do have free will doesn't prove or mean that people do. Laws and penalties are in place to condition us to act a certain way, if one doesn't act that certain way anyways because other conditions have determined them not to, then they are determined to face the penalties. Them having to face the penalties is designed to reinforce and strengthen the stimuli to increase the conditioning effectiveness of these laws for others.
A murderer doesn't freely choose to think murderous thoughts nor freely choose to act on them. The thoughts were determined by the conditions of his environment, and the determined thoughts determined his actions. "He" is just the product of his biology's reaction to his accumulated experiences with his environment. We can't blame him for being determined to that course. What we are in effect doing with laws and consequences is conditioning people to behave in a way we have deemed appropriate. If they act against the conditions we've set forth anyways, we know that there were conditions greater then the ones we've put in place that caused that individual to behave the way they did. By making them faces the consequences we strengthen the effect of the conditions we've put in place as it serves as a model for others and that individual for future incidents. But was he really to blame, probably not.
My concern is with determining what conditions are stronger or work better to condition people to behave how we thing they "ought" to, and how to deal with them when they don't act accordingly. The laws and consequences like we have now. Or rehabilitation, which is really just reconditioning the individual. Or perhaps both. When we punish people for their actions which they have no control over, they end up being "collateral damage" in a cause that has a greater agenda then just them. Can we justify that. Is it moral? Does it matter?
-
-
free will and fate work hand in hand
Imagine a road map representing your life.
the roads are choices and the destinations the result of those choices. Numerous but finite roads, numerous but finite destinations. Hence free will , hence fate. But many results are fated.
We are back to alternate realities again. Every choice, every destination, every possibility played out in alternate realities, billions of them/-
Do you mean like parallel universes?
-
-
yes but more than 2
Have you ever seen those books where the reader can dictate the way the story goes? They get chapters which say select option 1.2.or 3 then they follow that story line and then are asked again to select an option.
The book was written with many ways it can be played out, even the author can not anticiapte all the different permiatations.
BUT he wrote it none the less!
One man wrote a book, with finite choices, finite destinations, but the reader and not the author dictates the way the story goes.-
Causal determinism claims you are wrong. It is all pre-determined.
p.s. Quantum physics with its affection for probabilities may be a problem here so let's just ignore it for now...
-
-
I don't support casual determinisn though.
-
Only the very brave do...
-
-
Free will is an illusion only to the weak. The strong of will can excise the future of their choice, whether by manipulating probabilities, peers or communities.
To those who follow, the meek of mind, the shoulders upon which the great must stand, their freewill is quixotical. Curtailed by the wills of the strong and they may even love them for their subjugation. Although the weak may believe they are free, they are still subject to higher orders. Their choices are being manipulated by others, but they convince themselves the choice was their own.
We have given these illusions reassuring names like duty, morals (not ethics, they are distinctly different), law, obedience, civility, ettiquette and complacency.
The list is nigh endless.
We also call it slavery.
The Strong may be executives determining what course a company takes (and the plebs select their choice of the options given them), a religeous sect imposing a set of moral standards ... usually with negative reinforcement eagerly provided from the rest of the enslaved population (a way to vent their frustraion at their own loss of power and attempt to regain some; although the power they inflict is not their own, only a manifestation of the wills of the Strong through them) or governments dictating ideals, patriotism and concocting enemies.
The degree of the illusion relies on the degree of enslavement, the strength of the will and the clarity of vision. To observe free will as an illusion, would only be the first step toward emancipation.
Without the will to force your own future, however, that particular narrow window into true living will never grant you escape.
Best remember that in a universe of cause and effect, ... it is best to be the cause.-
I agree with all the above, but
as I explained by the map, there are FINIte choices and finite detsinations, we can choose the choice, but the choice is limited. Hence there is an illusion of 'free will' all be it restrricted.
We all do have that illusion as we can never anticipate all the varaibales involved in a choice.
I tend to live life as a game of chess and i do consider the various options available to me, and the possible outcomes befor making a choice. Sometimes there is a vrey powerful influence that will try to direct me towards a particular choice regardless of my 'naturl intent'. I refer to that influence as God.
-
-
urikalish
"Only the very brave do..."
and those who consider all murderers are innocent and objectivity does not exist.
( I do see casual determinism, I just prefer to not believe in it, as people need to remain responsible for their misdeeds)-
Yes, me too. This is what I meant by "human society can not function correctly when people are not presumed responsible for their choices, even if it’s not actually true".
-
-
I believe free will is one of the greatest gifts God gave to man. Unfortunately, man has used his free will to really screw things up in this world. To me, the greatest symbol of man's free will are the two trees in the garden of Eden: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God placed them both there, in the midst of paradise, and told Adam that he could eat of any tree in the garden (including the tree of life), except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And He warned Adam that the day he ate of that tree, he would die. Unfortunately, man exercised his free will and went and ate of the tree of knowledge after a fallen angel named Lucifer deceived Eve by contradicting what God had said and lying to her about the value of eating from that tree. I believe that the tree of knowledge was put there in the garden of Eden to truly give man the choice to obey God or disobey God. Man was not created as a robot that was programmed to obey everything God said. Instead, he was created a free moral agent who had the free will and ability to obey God or disobey God. I believe that God created man and wants man to freely choose with his free will to love Him and worship Him as his Creator and Father. Unfortunately, while man lived in a perfect paradise, he chose to disobey God and brought sin and death to the whole human race as a result, just as God had warned him would happen. However, I do believe that because of Yeshua, man has a second chance and can be forgiven. I believe that as this phase of world history begins to wrap up and come to an end, one of the greatest things will be this: that in the midst of the greatest darkness the world has ever known, there will be a group of people who choose to exercise their free will to love and obey God and His commandments. These people will do what Adam should have done; they will eat daily from the Tree of Life, who is Yeshua, and they will love and worship the God who created them and do His will. In other words, they will follow Yeshua's example and say, "Not my will, but Your will be done."-
i dont know man.. the story of Adam and the "tree of life" just sounds like God playing a sick game with precious human life... kind of like Hitler.. God made the fruit look really nice in the middle of a paradise.. well, Adam is already consumed in the perfect lifestyle so of course he's gonna pick the best fruit!! it's not like Adam had any type of logical intelligence back then.. i mean hell, they couldn't even make a stone wheel back then!
Anywy, God already knew Adam was going to pick from the wrong tree because God knows everything... so... is that really free will?
if God gave man free will, then why does God still get held accountable for the good things that happen in the world?
-
-
Yes, you have free will but always face the consequences when it goes wrong.
Hugs, JJ -
It is all just chemicals rushing around in and between our nerve cells! What kind of free will is it in that? -
I kind of like the concept of casual determinism. i read your blog about it ( i think i commented too) and it sounds like a nice theory.. i kind of figured it was kind like destiny theory, but it's not... it's nice median between destiny and free will...
-
Wow. You guys are deep. I was going to say something silly, like ... Free Wiil? wasn't that a movie? but, it doesn't seem funny anymore. Don't worry .. I'm going, going .. gone. -
Isn't free will a Christian concept? And if it is then I don't understand the question - because if you're not Christian the idea of free will really doesn't make any sense. -
free will is not a religious concept.
Not having free will is a fairly new concept in the scheme of time. -
Interesting. I've only ever heard of the term and thought process of "free will" when used in Christian terms. If it's not used in a religious context I really can't comprehend it because 'free will' implies that something or someone normally makes decisions for your life but is now granting you with the ability to make those decisions for yourself. If you don't have a religious view then doesn't the idea of free will become non-relevant?
-
no, that is entirely your own personal interprettaion of what the term free will means.
-
Let's say someone tells me to pick a number between 1 and 10.
I use "free will" and "choose" 7.
I think the question is, did I have a choice ,or was the physical/chemical state of my brain prior to this "free choice" forced me to choose 7? -
That's not my personal interpretation - it's the only way I've ever heard others interpret the term free will. I've never heard it in a scientific context, which is why I didn't understand the question. I'm not a religious person so I've never thought about the existance or non-existance of free will.
I think Uri's explaination makes the question a little clearer...so now I have to think on it from that perspective.
-
-
For me free will is an illusion set up to fool the masses. I believe in parallel universes - quantum physics, and in alchemy.-
and is it your free will that you believe the way you do or are you forced to be that way?
-
-
Urik,
biology dictates everything, but that is not to say that we do not dictate biology.
You have already mentioned placebo effect. You can't have it both ways.-
What's the problem?
-
-
Placebo effect, you consider that healing can take place just by thinking it can. So you suggest the will to be healed can effect healing. science supports the fact that we can think ourselves better in some cases.
So we thus know this:
Thought can influence biology.
Bilogy can influence thought
Which came first? -
Thought IS biology/chemistry. A unique thought is just a unique brain patter.
e.g. If I will surprise you with a loud voice, your brain will cause your body to jump and your heart rate to increase. Your mind is triggering much of what's going on in your body. That doesn't mean you have any choice.-
Dreams can result in the same 'reaction' but the actual sound which stimualtes that reaction does not exist. the thought however does.
Thoughts do influence biology. That is placebo.
You deny placebo effect? I thought earlier you said you recognised it. -
When sleeping, the body simply shuts down movement sub system. This is why you are not really walking while on REM.
Thoughts ARE biology. No body vs mind problem. It's all "body".
I DO believe in the placebo effect. -
I agree with Uri (and await the retribution of the masses).
The body cannot live without the mind, and vice versa.
If you can't have one without the other, then there can be no infliction of conflict to one without inflicting suffering to the other.
-
-
Zarquon, am I the masses? lol
re placebo
biology manifests thoughts but does that then mean that biology manifests the positive thoughts required for healing as per palcebo effect? If so why not just get on a heal itself without the middle man that is thought?
Why does the body need to think itself well in order to be well and why do negative thoughts (stress) lead to ill health?
Why is thought so influential on the bodies biological state?
Please consider that question in terms of biology. -
It's all just neurotransmitters and hormones. Feeling good or bad releases certain materials in your brain that causes changes in the rest of your body. You can also consume some of that stuff artificially without really having any reason to feel good or bad.
-
so
Why is thought so influential on the bodies biological state? -
The mind is an organ that part of its job is to releases chemicals to the blood stream that cause changes in the rest of the body. What's the amazement? What's the difference between body and mind?
p.s. There is no darkness, only the absence of light.
Maybe it's not just about feeling good, but more about not feeling bad? It is known that stress has bad influence on the human body (reduced appetite, insomnia, weaker immune system etc.). Maybe when you feel good, it is more about canceling the things caused by stress, so we are actually just back to normal...?
-
-
Uri - do you consider there to be a difference between the mind and the brain? Your thoughts may help me with your original question.
-
I don't believe in the existence of a soul, if that's what you're asking.
-
No, that's not what I was asking. I'm thinking more in terms of the biology of the brain vs the psychiatry of the mind, do you think there's a divide there or is everything explained by biology.
-
-
Free will in my opinion is present in a limited way. I don't think that we're here for some given purpose by god or our life is all planned out already from the moment we're born, so don't even begin thinking that ;).
Free will I'd say is the way in which we control our minds to regulate our actions, but the brain as many might know can fail. Just think of dementia in example, in the most severe cases can you still speak of free will present there? They don't even know who they are anymore in some cases, not just name but a lot more. Is free will still truly present?
The same goes in cases of brain damage, when certain parts of the brain get damaged it can result in a lot of violence and aggression in a very primitive way which sometimes is uncontrollable without medication to basically "put the person down", since this wasn't present before the brain damage would have occurred is this free will?
In neither cases the person is being directly controlled by another person, but I wouldn't say it's completely out of the will of the person him or herself either which would undermine the presence of free will.-
Let's say I'll tell you to pick a number between 1 and 10. You use your free will and choose 7. Did you really have a choice, or was the physical/chemical state of your brain prior to this "free choice" forced you to choose 7, like Casual Determinism suggests?
-
Ah, the popular choice of 7 :), keep in mind though that not everybody picks 7. Other popular choices are in example 6 and 9. In essence though this is something which you can alter purposely when giving the response simply by training yourself in it.
Also in case of young kids which have nothing special with the number 7 the chances are a lot lower of them to actually mention it.
Since it can be influenced by you as a person whether consciously or subconsciously you could argue about this not being part of free will. -
Slevi,
You missed my point. It was an example of a free choice, not a tribute to number seven.
Let's say I tell you to pick a color instead. Do you really have a choice, or is the physical/chemical state of your brain prior to this "free choice" will force you to choose a certain color, like Casual Determinism suggests? -
like Casual Determinism suggests.
-
-
Yes, very well explained Slevi. My mother has alzheimer's and in the early stages, like many with the disease, she had violent outbursts which was contrary to her behaviour prior to getting the illness. Even in a healthy person I just don't see how free will enters into ones behaviour.
-
Urikalish, I would agree with you that if we accept the existence of immutable physical laws, then there cannot be any true free will. I don't think this poses a problem for holding people accountable for their decisions and actions either. Because if you take this view, then you're basically eliminating the wall of separation between a person (their mind, consciousness, etc.) and the chemical activity of their brain. It doesn't make sense to ask if someone should be held accountable for the inevitable chemical activity of their brain when they ARE their brain, not some outside physical entity held hostage by it. This is hard for me to explain, but hopefully you can make some sense out of it.
Anyway yeah the easier argument is just saying society would crumble if we had absolutely no enforced system of morals.-
It might actually be something we're leading to, research is being done to unravel why murderers become murderers and there's a couple of theories present in differences in the brain to be found compared to the normal society.
So in the future rather than locking murderers up or even putting them to death they might be treated like patients with any disease and set free into society again. Of course something like this would still be decades away at least and then still it's the question whether someone can truly get back into society if they'd be back to a "normal" mental state whilst knowing they murdered someone.
@Uri: I'd say you'd be thinking too far off then, it's kinda like the conversation in the matrix between neo and the oracle. Casual determinism in this case being the oracle, if I'd want to say blue but then think that would fall within the pattern let's say green, would it have been what casual determinism suggested again? -
@Slevi,
Yes. Even the "choosing blue but then changing to green" should be predictable according to casual determinism. -
To be honest, I think casual determinism and quantum physics' known affection for probabilities do not conform well with each other.
-
-
@ Slevi - murderers as having a disease. Does it goes the same for others say pedophiles ?-
@shaydelgado: Do pedophiles seem healthy to you?
-
-
Interesting! How come though in the bible it says what will happen on the last days? That would mean the movie has already been played.
What happens though if we destroy the entire earth the next day? Then the ending in the bible will never take place. This means that the future already happened and we didn't choose the destruction path. -
Interesting thing about the pedophiles. If the bible is fact then in heaven you can't have a pedophile.
Spirit bodies have no age. So someone 10yrs old, or someone 30yrs old is the exact same thing in spirit world.
Only in the physical body we have age. So they would never get in trouble in the next life. It isn't possible if we have no age.
A spirit can't age. -
The only place I have ever been free is on the slopes. If I want to stall a rock I can; if I want to jump a log I can; If I want to straightline top to bottom, then ain't nothing stopping me...
In life though free will is kept in check by social and moral laws... in other words we are free to choose what we want, but only within the confines of those laws. In fact with so much constant bombardment about how important it is to be accepted in society I am even willing to go so far as to say that our 'free will' is conditioned: we think it is our free will that dictates an action, but we were conditioned into making that decision.
So in my opinion free will does not exist. I think we just have so many choices with what to do it seems like we are free.-
Interesting.
The first question would be (for nitpicker purposes) is it really your free will that reins on the slopes, or are you simply a slave to gravity and self-inflicted naivety? Would it not be just as interesting to straitline bottom to top, should you choose? You also can't restore the log to a tree or cause the rock to stop orbiting the sun.
You may not want to do any of these things, but when you examine yourself, you must decide, is it because you physically can't ("and everyone knows that"), or is it because you legitimately don't want to, even if you could.
As for society, I have to agree, I find it more and more limiting as I examine my own will and compare it to various societies and cultures (I like to travel). Many places, including my own Province, have outdated laws and strange habits (why can't I drink a glass of whiskey on my front lawn if I want to?). It can also be said that choosing to remain inside those cultural boundries is, in fact, a choice. At any time one can break a law, cultural taboo or social boundry.
There is really nothing stopping you, that's why murders happen and what keeps policemen employed.
There may be consequences, granted; Jail, injury, beatings and other unpleasantness, but the choice is still there and is, thankfully, usually for the support of society.
An inherited flaw from being social creatures I suppose, but chaos IS frequently inconvenient.
Given time, science and technology may remove the limitations imposed by the 'physically impossible'. After all we can fly, travel faster then sound and communicate, instantly, half a world away without speaking a word or seeing the recipiant. Amazing times, but ultimately we need to seek into ourselves to find that true barrier between free will and delusional acceptance of someone else's choices. -
Zarquon said, "but ultimately we need to seek into ourselves to find that true barrier between free will and delusional acceptance of someone else's choices."
We need to seek into ourselves? As if we have a choice.
Ironically, the very desire to be free from a deterministic environment was caused by it. -
"Ironically, the very desire to be free from a deterministic environment[,] was caused by it."
Nice!
You're probably right. For better or worse that stubborness to deny our continued inflictions drives us as a species, towards great things (... and sometimes the incredibly stupid).
... and back we come to the question, is it free will that drives us to break those boundaries or that basal instinct and nature .
Do we rebel to conform? -
Zarquon said, "For better or worse that stubborness to deny our continued inflictions drives us as a species, towards great things (... and sometimes the incredibly stupid).
Well, since our stubborness is also determined I think it is the deterministic environment that really drives us. However, the illusion of free will may have evolved in us over time as a survival measure to either motive us (giving us a sense of 'reason,' even though it would be unknowlingly invalid) to act (since we might be less motivated knowing we have no control) and to prevent us from self destructing perhaps due to possible feelings of hopelessness. The illusion of free will could also be a direct result of the ego.
Zarquon said, "... and back we come to the question, is it free will that drives us to break those boundaries or that basal instinct and nature ."
Free will drives us or the illusion of free will drives us? I do not think we have free will, so I do not thing that it drives us, however the illusion of free will may drive us. Though those who believe they have it don't think it is an illusion of course. (If they knew that then it wouldn't work). I think it is the deterministic environment that moves us. What boundries are there to break? As if there is causuality and that there is something outside of causality. I don't think there is. And if there is any randomness as quantumn mechanics suggest, randomness still doesn't allow for free will. As it would be just that, random, not willed.
Zarquon said, "Do we rebel to conform?"
Any rebelion against the deterministic environment was determined by the deterministic environment and thus the rebelion is conforming to that which one is rebelling against.
-
-
Morgantj said: “Ironically, the very desire to be free from a deterministic environment was caused by it”.
You really have to explain this, it has been bugging me whole morning. Somehow I have the feeling I agree, but I am not sure.-
This comes up a lot in the free will vs determism debates. Someone eventually claims that one has the abilty to free ones self from the deterministic environment, Or can "choose" to try to do so. Yet, in a deterministic enviroment we can not really "choose" anything, it is determined.
Any desire, want, need, or attempted action to want to be free from the the deterministic environment was determined by the deterministic environment. Our desires, wants, needs, actions, etc... are determined, so to attempt to be free from determinism is an action determined by it. The very freedom people think they choose to chase was determined by the deterministic environment they wish to be freed from. Even thier wish to be free from the deterministic enviroment was determined by it. There is no escape.
-
-
Okay, so I indeed agree with that. I also think our attempt and even our wish to be free from the determinstic enviroment is determined by it.
But I do not agree that there is nothing to choose. I think we have a choice about our emotional attachment to our actions. The more we become conscious of those emotions, the more we can choose. Maybe that is also determined, but I see it as a gliding scale. And I think the speed is not determined.-
I would have to disagree with "we have a choice about our emotional attachment to our actions" because how we react and feel about things are determined by how we have been conditioned, so an emotional attachment was stimulated by something, and it wasn't by choice without a cause. When you answer what caused the emotional attachment to an action you know a piece that determined it.
"The more we become conscious of those emotions, the more we can choose"
I don't think so, I think that the action of becoming aware of ones emotions is just yet another condition that "determines" our future emotions and responses to those emotions. If you become aware, you were determined to become aware, and anything resluting from that awareness was also determined.
-
-
It does make me curious then if you think it is determined at birth if someone will reach his full potential before he dies.
Personally I think we are conditioned indeed, but as humans (as opposed to animals, who just are what they are) we do not necessary have to stick with that at all times.
This I do not exactly understand:
“and it wasn't by choice without a cause. When you answer what caused the emotional attachment to an action you know a piece that determined it”.-
Anthe said, "It does make me curious then if you think it is determined at birth if someone will reach his full potential before he dies."
Everyone reaches their full potential before they die because their is only one full potential for each person, and everyone reaches it as ones actions are simply determined by the conditions of the environment. There are no choices, only illusions of choices. Out of all the seemingly alternative paths we thing we see, we only go down one. The other seemingly alternative paths that we did not go down were not really options at all, only further conditions that contributed to determining the path we did take. To speak of "full" potential is to suggest there could have been alternate paths, and choices.
Anthe said, "Personally I think we are conditioned indeed, but as humans (as opposed to animals, who just are what they are) we do not necessary have to stick with that at all times."
We are animals too. Just because we may have a more relatively raised consciousness then other animals that doesn't free us from causality, it is just another variable that is subject to causality like everything else. Again, the very desire to be free from a deterministic environment was caused by it.
Anthe said, "This I do not exactly understand:
'and it wasn't by choice without a cause. When you answer what caused the emotional attachment to an action you know a piece that determined it.'"
There are no choices. Any alternatives we think there are just further conditions that contribute to determining the one path we have been conditioned to take. These conditions were the causes that determined our path. Conditions that also determined our emotional attachments.
-
-
“To speak of "full" potential is to suggest there could have been alternate paths, and choices”.
I agree that in fact there are no alternative paths. But in my opinion there is the choice to actually go that path, through experiences that is, or to avoid it.
“Just because we may have a more relatively raised consciousness then other animals that doesn't free us from causality, it is just another variable that is subject to causality like everything else”.
The raised consciousness indeed does not necessary free us from causality. But I think that reflection on our own thinking and emotions can take us away from making the same ‘mistakes’ over and over again.-
"But in my opinion there is the choice to actually go that path, through experiences that is, or to avoid it. "
Why do you think you have a choice in this matter?
-
-
Tjeez, difficult question.Why do you think what you think in these matters?
I read once, or actually different times in different forms, that there is only one thing to do in life and that is to get to know yourself. And I, kind of, think that is true.
We all have this, call it animal, side which just acts (or reacts), and we all have this, lets call it human, side to reflect upon our actions. But some people tend to just act without ever reflecting, while others stay on the outside looking in, so to speak. And either way is okay, its just a way of getting to know the world.
But at some point the other side has to come along. And when those two get to work together, I think you can learn much faster. And therefore more and more have a choice of some kind.
I don’t know if this anwers you question, but this is all I can think of for this moment. And it makes me curious why you (or anyone else) thinks there is absolutely no choice. -
The problem is not the will, which is simply an effect as it is to love, to desire, to hate and any other verb occurrence. We are simply matter, matter that has acquired the ability to know itself as matter. This capability is called conscience and the "problem" lies in its subjectivity which is the serial number of each individual and is responsible for assigning a single meaning to what we call "life". However, the meaning of life of Man (such as race, as a collectivity, not as an individual)is in the most essential, and discarding any possible presence of self (subject), organic matter that reproduces organic matter, since its origin until his disappearance. A cycling of organic matter. That is what Human Race has been, is being and will be. Hence determinism or its opposite are added values to this basic sense of the existence of Man (imagine a rock or a fruit wanting to play or wanting to die, it´s absurd simply because they don´t have conscience of being rock or fruit, but if they could they´d be "talking" not necessarily about love or hate, they probably would invent their own subjectivity). We have invented that methodical doubt, it´s not about we are fated to do or not to do: that´s language, a meaning for something (by nature) without meaning. Also, the rest is language, the rest is a wish to forget, a move away. What we are... just matter in perpetual combination...-
Determinism doesn't give a squat about the meaning of something. It simply acknowledges the motion of the cycling of matter as you described, and recognizes that the motion is due to a perpetual cause and effect relationship.
Those who think there is free-will on the other hand, they claim they have control and choices, that they are free from causality, and have control to work towards some seemingly meaningful purpose. It seems more meaningful to the individual specifically when they think they have control. So among other motives, I think that people are attached to the illusion of free-will because they are also attached to wanting to be able to create their own meaning, or have control of finding some sort of meaning or purpose to their lives.
I hear so often, those that believe they have free will, when faced with the deterministic viewpoint, they often respond, "what would be the point of that?" or "whats the point if I don't have control" So you see, ones search and drive towards meaning and purpose, is a primary motivation for people to want to believe they have free will. This is one of the many reasons why I am skeptical to believe that we have free will, people have ulterior motives to want to believe they have free will. -
I totally agree with morgantj.
-
-
In simple words: determinism (and its opposite concept) are a product exclusively from human conscience, they only exist because of a model or theory, nothing else. It´s not about an ethic of existence (asking oneself if man may act freely or not). Without the existence of a conscience (which created a code -language- and therefore the methodical doubt "am I or not free to act?") able to perceive what we call reality everything will be the same with or without somebody asking himself "if human is free to or not to do". Language only can tell us this true: we are matter in recombination... So, determinism and its contrary are finally illusions, only language, human invention, none is property of matter.
-
I think you are mistaking words and/or language for being the reality they are expressing rather then being symbolic representatives used in an attempt to express reality.
Words, are mere arrangements of tokens organized to create titles which are then placed upon substance. Words should not be mistaken as substance themselves. Words should be understood to be an attempt to communicate the most accurate representation of an individual interpretation of reality.
When we say "apple" the word itself is not the reality of what it is representing. There reality is that particular fruit exist whether we have a name for it or not. When we speak of an apple, the word "apple" is used as a representative to express the reality of that fruit. So when we speak of determinism, the word, determinism, is just being used to represent some percieved reality.
-
-
Everything you just said reaffirm what I wrote above, language is an attemp to fragment reality because of imposibility of man to percieve it as a unit, as a whole (what actually is), it´s a natural impulse to systematize what surrounds us.
From the first idea of man, the first primitive perception of reality (call it whatever you want: apple, leaf, planet, galaxy, universe, dimension, tear, sand, determinism...) came up from conscience it´s nothing but a fragment of an everything imposible to be understood completely and therefore is mentally processed (that´s the job of the conscience) by man as a part with "individuality", hence language -any code made to represent, symbolise, translate and finally be the tool to share that part from an everything captured by any means of sensory of man- was born from that very necessity. So, any theory or model of reality (including freedom of the will) is a "magnified word", a "huge symbol" of that part of that everything but it does not exists by itself and from itself, it´s not independent from language (what is an exclusive invention of man), that´s why I said it´s not a property of matter. Determinism is one of those "magnified words". Eternal return might not be the answer for this, but is the closest point of view for the being of reality...-
it's not independent from language (what is an exclusive invention of man)
Bees communicate with a language. Whales communicate with a language. Therefore, language is not the exclusive invention of man. There are those who argue that language is an instinct (Chomsky). We learn a language in order to communicate with others, but the ability to communicate is innate. You don't choose to communicate, you just do.
"A rose by any other name..." therefore reality does not depend on the language that describes it. For example, you could argue that Fahrenheit, Celsius and kelvin are three different language systems to describe the same thing, namely temperature. Water will freeze at a certain temperature. This level will be described vastly different in the named systems, but it won't change the reality that the water froze. Water freezes pretty far from 0 kelvin, which means it is relatively hot, but the water is still frozen.
We are simply matter, matter that has acquired the ability to know itself as matter.
Then we are subject to the laws of matter. All that means is we may know that we are subject to the laws of matter. That does not negate determinism (the principle that all information and events embody natural laws; the philosophical position having to do with the degree to which free will is completely free or controlled and shaped by environmental, social or divine events.)
To use the former example, if I say choose a number between 1 and 10, and you chose 'potato', and if you got 'potato', that would indicate unconditional free will. If you chose a number between 1 and 10, then how free was your will? Again, if you chose 7, why did you chose 7?
-
-
my question is: can any relative self-autonomy exist if there is no Free will? -
Bees communicate with a language...
Suppose that bees achieve a conscience at human levels, probably it would mean nothing more than bees joining to the club of beings asking themselves about free will...
...therefore reality does not depend on the language that describes it
Again, I wrote it above. With or without the existence of language -once more, any code invented by humans to share a digested fragment of reality (by necessity, by force), not snapshots of it (bees), reality won´t change: matter in recombination.
Then we are subject to the laws of matter...
Bold judgement. Subjectivity, just that. What we call "laws of matter" it´s a necessity for common living. Reality is not a set of separate elements (environment, society or divine providence). Being the most objective and accurate posible according to the limits of human nature, reality is just MATTER as one, whole and unique thing -by laws or random? Nobody will know, nobody will tell, ever-. I "admire" the courage of the humans who try to explain the "laws of universe" based on our immediate earth laws, our domestic laws (laws of the universe based on the physics, chemistry and biology of the earth: an infinitesimal portion of everything trying to explain the essence, patterns and future status of that everything based on the characteristics and principles of itself).
If you chose a number between 1 and 10, then how free was your will?
Just philosophical literature...-
At some point we must a knowledge that all science and discussion is within the Human reality. We are not able ask scientific or philosophical experience beyond human interaction--which provokes the questions. Just as bees only knows a bees reality.
After a while, if were not careful we cannot discuss anything.
So we accept these "laws" with as Carl Sagan would have said "with the best supporting evidence have.
I guess, for me, after thinking about this question, I end up with the very fist answer on this thread by Tony B. -
dragonlager, the question "Does it matter?" leads to "we cannot discuss anything," because does anything really matter?
You play with the cards you are dealt, anything else is just bluffing.
-
-
...We are not able ask scientific or philosophical experience beyond human interaction...
Remember, Free Will is a product of metaphysics (what is a human realization), a formalization of the imagination. It´s also a very valid option of philosophy.
...accept these "laws" with as Carl Sagan would have said "with the best supporting evidence have"
The behavioral patterns that are repeated on earth (meaning laws) are the only tool we have to understand our infinitesimal tempo-space reality. Are they "the best supporting evidences" to explain the whole universe behavioral patterns, the complete "everything"? Is it "the best supporting evidence" that a portion of the everything claims to be the everything?
I end up with the very fist answer on this thread by Tony B.
Personal choice...
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
