Do we have free will?

File: 1422398168771.jpg (138KB, 908x540px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 908x540px

Free will is a spook

Some people are lucky to born with it, other not so much.

Only Muslims do, which is why you see them getting up to all sorts of shenanigans.

>>2859842
What?

>>2859773
Yes, but we are social creatures so let's call it "social free will"

>>2859843

This

>>2859773
>you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free
>if you sin you are a slave to sin

there's your freewill.

I don't know. I have a strong suspicion that anyone who says otherwise is talking out their ass.

If will is influenced by outside factors, then why should it be free?

>>2859884
this makes the most sense to me

>>2859773
Why would we not have free will?

>>2859773
If by free will you mean that you have the ability to choose, or not, from among the options apparently available to you, whether they are or not, sure.

Do you have the free will to jump to the moon? No, you don't. Do you have the free will to surprise God, or any other impossible thing? No, you don't.

You might choose to get a dog because you love animals
However, you did not choose to love animals, that is just a desire/passion that you have. You can choose to do what you want, but you cant choose what you want

Call it limited free will or something

>>2859773
What does it even mean for your will to be free?

The most demanding requirement for the freedom of the will is an action which is un-caused. It seems unlikely that we could ever do something which is truly has no antecedent cause, so is it at all possible to have a free will in a world which has cause and effect? If we are in fact impelled to do things, then where is the room for the freedom of the will?

I propose that it is possible to achieve the freedom of the will. If an agent forms the intention to make a conscious decision, then that agent's will is free at that moment.

I anticipate that the response to this proposition would be this, would the information used in the act of consideration necessary for the decision be a sufficient cause to make that decision? Sure it is, however that agent must terminate considerations at some point lest no decision is actually made. So, if the agent has the option to consider information ad infinitum, then what would it mean to say that the agent was caused to make some decision by potentially infinite conditions? In other words it would be to say that the decision was caused by everything which is like saying, I do not know what it was caused by.


There exists freedom of the will.

>>2860317

Can you give me an example of a decision you took with no cause?

We have free will before we are born. On earth we are governed by fate and destiny. Although we can obviously choose to better ourselves or not.

>>2860317
If you swing a golf-club and hit a ball, does the ball choose to move? No, the ball was impelled to movement.

If the whole of the universe is made out of only material things and if understanding movement is merely a matter of understanding the cause of that movement, then you are impelled to do things and you have no real choice in the matter.

If your brain is made of atoms and if atoms are moved around only by other atoms (including forces originating from atoms), then everything you do is ultimately determined by the movement of atoms in your head.


So the argument goes.

>>2860432
>We have free will before we are born.

What exactly did you decide before you were born|?

>>2860428
>decide to eat
>cause his that i am hungry, sure
>but i choose what it is that i eat

free will

>>2860474

Are you seriously suggesting you would just starve to death if you had free will?

This is beyond silly.

>>2860461
You chose your body and agreed to everything that will happen to you and everything you will ever do.

>>2860512

Before you were even born?

>>2860519
Ja

>>2860428
Can you explain why a decision must have no cause for it to qualify as free will?

>>2859850
he's implying that people with higher intelligence have free will and the lower level monkeys don't

it's an self satisfied elitist idea

why do fedoras love this meme

>>2859773
>free
not according to ancaps and libertarians
irony, isn't it?

File: In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law... Is it like the hand of God hovering above At least it is true that man has no control, even over his own will.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

idk

If we accept the most fundamental laws of physics, every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause going back to the "original" cause (AKA Big Bang). In many ways, the cause and the effect become synonymous on an infinite scale.

Therefore, from a theoretical physics viewpoint, everything that has happened and will happen was predetermined and has been predetermined.

Now, this is not to say that the "original" cause isn't extremely complicated, or that it was itself governed by preexisting laws of physics.

Jesus, the protestants were correct after all?!?!?

File: killmeplz.jpg (19KB, 230x164px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 230x164px

>>2860317
Everything has a cause, right? Think of it on particle level. At any given time a particle occupies a time and space, and in that instant the particle also has a velocity. The only way the particle could have obtained such a velocity is by interaction from other particles beforehand, which subsequently changes the position, time and velocity of any particle it interacts with.

Now our thoughts are processed in our brain are really just electrical signals going though neurons and chemical compunds reacting with each other. Now both the electrical signals and the compounds consist of nothing else but particles, which as stated previously can be calculated. Calculated in the sense that if we knew the position and velocity at any given time of all the particles in any isolated system we could calculate the position and velocity of all the particles say one second later. And at any time.

All this is purely physical, there is no room for what we call free will, it would violate causality.

>>2860848
Cont*

Predetermined may not be the best word here.

Nonetheless, people ITT are mixing up the meaning of "free will". That makes sense considering "free" isn't at all given one definition, or "free will" given one interpretation.

Still, based upon the prevailing scientific view, we don't necessarily determine the "cause" and the "effect" of our actions. We decide on the actions, we do these actions, and we cause the results.

But the ultimate responsibility for that action still goes back to the original cause.

Technically, if we develop a computer and software system powerful enough, it might be able to look at all actions this instant and plot out the entire future based upon that instant. But that'd be a real buzzkill, right?

>>2860474
So existence of free will is an argument from ignorance huh?

Really makes you think.

>>2860858
>there is no room for what we call free will
Only when you reduce the world to an abstract level like you're doing. Otherwise, sure there is.

Physical causes don't negate the possibility of free will, which is the measure of one's ability to make decisions and exert one's force over other forces. To say there's no free will implies that we are never a cause ourselves, we have no effects, and we never have any control over these effects, and that we are all with equal power in the world. We are all only with equal power on an abstract level that's so abstract it becomes fairly unrelated to the world, like math.

>>2860474
You chose something because you were reminded of it, or for whatever reason. The illusion of choice is very much real and strong, but ultimately, if you were put into the same situation you were when you picked spaghetti a trillion times, every single time you would've picked the same dish. It was literally impossible for you to make a different choice at that moment. Ideas don't come from nothing, they come from chemical reactions in your brain, and you can't decide those.

>>2859773
Yes. I could have the choice to not post in the thread.

>>2860873
Your ability to make "decisions" comes from physical processes, and those are determined by the laws of physics and so forth.

>>2860895
On an abstract level unrelated to my level of cognition, which dictates the world more than the abstract.

ooogga booga ooogga
Cubical square to the 98th power.

>>2860727
Because becoming responsible for your own actions regardless of what rotten circumstances you are in is a scary proposition.
Better to blame your environment for why you're fat. Otherwise you could be blamed.

>>2860895
physicalism is such a meme position.

Yes.

We don't need this thread every day.

ultimately no, but from the only perspectives we currently posses we appear to, so we might as well behave accordingly

>>2860904
why is blame necessary?

>>2860904
>Because becoming responsible for your own actions regardless of what rotten circumstances you are in is a scary proposition.
True and powerful. Easier to pretend that the so called disenfranchised classes don't have any agency when in actuality they do.

>>2860474
>>but i choose what it is that i eat
No, you ate something you liked or something that was nutritious.

>>2861375
if youve got it all figured out then show your working, faggot

People who deny free will are really the most retarded niggers in existence.

They should be shot.

>>2859773

Only god has free will, the rest of us have a limited ability to choose between the options fate provides us with.

>>2859884

fucking this

both internal and external factors

also, free will can be corrupted by sin

>>2860432

are you retarded

i didn't ask to be in this human body you dipshit

>>2862279
The choosing of the external factors which end up influencing you ultimately depend on free will.

Your body is subject to thousands of stimuli right now, visual, aural, tactile. Do all of them have the same impact? Or does your mind, your free will, select a few of them?

Btfo by kant nigger.

i swear, "free will" is the most debated shit ever

>>2862282
>Or does your mind, your free will, select a few of them?

how is it free will if im not consciously selecting them myself?
i dont have a choice in whether or not i am effected more or less by different stimuli

File: think.jpg (69KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x600px

Maybe there is free will because if you knew every variable that caused you to make a specific choice, you could still choose something else.

File: ctf.jpg (29KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x600px

>>2862302
Maybe there isn't free will because if you knew every variable that caused you to make a specific choice, you could still not choose something else.

is anything real?

>>2859773
Do we have libertarian free will? No.
Do we have some kind of free will that makes sense given our typical intuition about the subject? Yes.

File: IMG_5058.jpg (17KB, 119x119px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 119x119px

>>2862613
I still chose to do the thing regardless

File: ag.png (134KB, 477x476px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 477x476px

>>2862950
That is an illusion

>>2860894
But you still posted nevertheless

naturally

yes, you do

that's not to say that people don't consign their agency to others out of personal weakness of will

see the germans

Okay /his/, should I go to the Philadelphia Museum of Art with my m8s, or stay home and read about language etymology of the Northern European peoples?

>>2859773
I have free will but everyone else is determined

When it's convenient to me, I am determined and it's the people I don't like who have free will

>>2863149
Dude go to the Philadelphia museum of art it's got a kickass armor section from what I hear. I also recommend you check out the Swedish American history museum, you can take Septa down to the AT&T station and it's like a block away in JFK park.

>>2863988
FDR park I mean pls forgib

>>2862280
>i didn't ask to be in this human body you dipshit
That's what you think, unenlightened pleb. Your soul goes to a body that matches it's character.

>>2859773
determination of actions present from the consciousness (sentience) seems to be present to as certain degree, but it seems like most actions are based on the person's physical status rather than their psychological status.

do we live in a deterministic world? too soon to say as we don't understand quantum mechanics well enough yet. I think it is safe to assume almost all actions are deterministic.

>>2859773
Yes, but determinism is also true.

the free will question is a false dichotomy

it presents to equally ridiculous choices, either you're magically separated from cause and effect from everything else in the universe, or you're an automaton

in reality people have will, neither free nor unfree

>>2859773
I was going to say "yes," but then changed my mind.

>>2864101
Smartest answer I've ever heard for the question

>>2864101>>2864855


>Smartest answer I've ever heard for the question

Nah, it's ignoring the question. There is no false dichotomy, either you're magically separated from cause and effect from everything else in the universe or you don't have free will.

>>2862284
The absurdity is only highlighted when its opposite, predetermination, is something a rational human being cannot argue for.

>>2864905
>either you're magically separated from cause and effect from everything else in the universe or you don't have free will.
Poor, black and white view of the question mate.

>>2864905
Obviously we don't have free will, but the question of free will almost always implies a dichotomy with the other answer being nonsense as well

>>2864943

There's only one answer that is nonsense.

>>2864941

Compatibilism is ridiculous.

>>2864101
>in reality people have will, neither free nor unfree
This, which is to say...

>>2864905
Freedom is relative, so it makes sense to measure free will as relative. You can't simply say it is or isn't, you have to understand the situation it is in and what it holds power over.