Is there free will?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
Exactly, we're not where we started (as we started by asking "Is there free will at all?" but rather we're at an impasse: the answer is just unknowable for the time being.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
But of course, that is the whole basis of quantum mechanics.
Not quite, since a particle can (as in it is possible) have a value of 0 for one the variables, the equation wouldn't be needed in that case. But again that is trivial, because it doesn't tell you jack-squat :tongue1:.
That being said, subatomic particles pretty much never sit still.
Well, if you put it that way then it makes sense. However, how do you explain "the answer is just unknowable for the time being"? Do you actually think that we will someday know the answer to this? Scientists would have to come up with the idea of telepathy to know other peoples thoughts and behavior and that way know if humans are capable of having free will.
Assuming there is no free will, can murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc be held responsible for their actions?
I kind of see such people as similar to cancerous cells. If society is seen as a body, then such individuals represent harmful agents within the body, that left untreated, could cause grave damage to the body and even its collapse. The cancerous cells never made the free choice to be cancerous; they were affected by external agents (sociological) or biological factors, but the immune response of the body seeks to eliminate such cells for the threat they pose.
The question in that case is what could the body (society) do to reduce or eliminate many of the factors that lead to these cancers (murder, rape, molestation, etc.)? I think a healthy society would probably lead to a healthier cells. Carcinogens like poverty, deception, oppression, exploitation, propaganda, betrayal, discord, greed, gluttony, envy, hubris, etc. should be avoided.
I kind of see such people as similar to cancerous cells. If society is seen as a body, then such individuals represent harmful agents within the body, that left untreated, could cause grave damage to the body and even its collapse. The cancerous cells never made the free choice to be cancerous; they were affected by external agents (sociological) or biological factors, but the immune response of the body seeks to eliminate such cells for the threat they pose.
The question in that case is what could the body (society) do to reduce or eliminate many of the factors that lead to these cancers (murder, rape, molestation, etc.)? I think a healthy society would probably lead to a healthier cells. Carcinogens like poverty, deception, oppression, exploitation, propaganda, betrayal, discord, greed, gluttony, envy, hubris, etc. should be avoided.
I could see cognitive science perhaps one day advancing that far. Right now they think that all our brain activity is represented by a certain pattern of neurons firing...a neural network to represent each individual thought and experience. If that's indeed true, then we have to figure out how to translate those patterns...if neurons X, Y, and Z are firing then it means something, but only Y and Z mean something different, etc.
And that's not the only way we could some day answer this question (maybe we can answer it now but no one has seen the connection with what we currently know).
I don't think this body can have perfect cells unless you start with a clean slate. Unfortunely for us this cancerous cells are already deeply rooted on our blood and the only way that we could destroy them is by destroying the body itself.
Get my metaphor?
Cell's don't have a conscious and therefor cannot 'choose' (if the ability to choose even exists). People have to be held responsible for their actions, even if they didn't necessarily choose to preform the action. Going from the arguement that free will doesn't exist, these people simply had a bad turn of fate. If they truly were born to kill than that is sad, but for the safety of society they have to be held responsible. To get off with their actions would most likely lead to more murders and rapists because there is no fear of repercussions.
I disagree.
It's fortunate that all cells are mortal. Eventually every cell will die and be replaced with new cells. So the secret to eliminating the cancerous cells from the body once and for all is to...
A. Focus on way to keep the cancerous cells from making more cancerous cells
B. Keep the new cells (children) from being infected by the same carcinogens which originally infected the cancerous cells
C. Change up the immune system so that the body (society) avoids and combats the presence of the carcinogens which originally caused the mutations.
Eventually the new cells will take over as the cancer dies off and the body (society) will be left healthier than it was before.
I would very much like to think that we do not have freewill.
But ultimately, does it matter if we have freewill or not? Afterall, even if knowing we do/do not have freewill, would it be able to change the course of our past, present and future? :/
Digressing, I'm inclined to think people who believe in freewill hope that they have complete control on their actions - past, present and future D: Rather then, everything they do is determined by the great powerful kozmic lawz of the universe! And assuming that men have egos, I think most don't want to be on the same level as animals who are generally believed not to have any freewill. I could be wrong, but oh well, maybe the kosmos are affecting me.
But ultimately, does it matter if we have freewill or not? Afterall, even if knowing we do/do not have freewill, would it be able to change the course of our past, present and future? :/
Digressing, I'm inclined to think people who believe in freewill hope that they have complete control on their actions - past, present and future D: Rather then, everything they do is determined by the great powerful kozmic lawz of the universe! And assuming that men have egos, I think most don't want to be on the same level as animals who are generally believed not to have any freewill. I could be wrong, but oh well, maybe the kosmos are affecting me.
I agree, this need for definition is the crux of the matter. And I would argue that there is free will.
Humans are endowed with meta-consciousness, which negates any argument that sociological or any other kind of "mental conditioning" is a limitation on free will. The very fact that we are able to see those limitations frees us from them. Obviously this is a broad generalization - not everyone is going to come to the realization that "I think X because I was taught Y, and I don't necessarily have to react the way I was taught." However, the question was "is there free will," not "does everyone have free will," and that is the question I am addressing. Although I would go so far as to say everyone has the possibility of free will, if they're willing to work (and in many cases, sacrifice deeply held beliefs) for it.
What is left, then, is whether or not we would define the physical process of thought as an "external agency" that constrains us. If the limitations of the firing of neurons in our brains are our definition of our limits of "free will," then perhaps we are limited. But that would imply that there is some kind of "free will" that exists beyond the physical capacity of our brains. Which begs the question: is it possible to "think" in a way that transcends our physical capabilities of thought? What, then, becomes of the definitions of "thought" and "consciousness" themselves?
Keep in mind that the concepts of "will" and "free will" were brought about within those same physical limitations. That is to say, the idea of "free will" itself, as a concept, exists only within the context of "thought" - the firing of neurons in the human brain.
Therefore, also within that context, I think free will must exist - because humans have the capacity to reach the physical limits of the brain (perhaps beyond), overriding any ingrained, learned patterns.
It depends... if you're willing to build upon whats given to you and not contradict it then there is such a thing as free will. In such a case then everything has free will and we're just building upon it.
GAH! why did this thread pop up now? I'm currently writing a paper on this exact topic. My answer is yes. Even though our thoughts and actions are results of our genetic makeup and the various stimuli that are given to us over our life, we still have the ability to think and make judgments about those stimuli. There in lies our free will.
btw, this isn't fully developed, I'm saving that for the paper. also, I don't have enough time to read the thread tonight, so...
btw, this isn't fully developed, I'm saving that for the paper. also, I don't have enough time to read the thread tonight, so...
I think that there is free will. While our judgment and decisions can guided by our genetic make up and environment, there is always the possibility you choose another way or think another way.
Like if you had a choice between option A and option B and you chose option B you still have the ability to choose option A, and a probability that you would choose option A . There is no law stating you must choose option B.
And weather you believe in nature versus nurture people have yet to connect the biological and environmental components of...you, To your day to day decision making. Therefor it would be difficult to prove what exactly is the ultimate determinant of your thought process etc weather that be you or some external force.
Like if you had a choice between option A and option B and you chose option B you still have the ability to choose option A, and a probability that you would choose option A . There is no law stating you must choose option B.
And weather you believe in nature versus nurture people have yet to connect the biological and environmental components of...you, To your day to day decision making. Therefor it would be difficult to prove what exactly is the ultimate determinant of your thought process etc weather that be you or some external force.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
My opinion on this debate:
Pain-in-the-butt argument is not arguable.
LOL most of philosophy is not arguable in that sense.
The point of philosophy is to argue to the end of time, right?
Speaking of which what is time? Is it really an arrow?
whether or not free will exists, it is a useful model. To understand people, free will is intuitive to people, and it simplifies. Trying to understand someone solely from the view point that they are accumulation of genetic factors and previous stimuli, they become too complex for the brain to handle.