|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:32 am
 |
|
|
 |
Do we have free will?
My opinion is yes.
If we don't have free will, that means our actions are predetermined. If so, then that would mean, that it is technically possible to know what I am going to do, yet if somehow I attained this information, couldn't I just not do it? I believe so. Since it would be impossible to gain this information though, you would simply have to go based on what you would do, and do the oppisite, which is why I believe, if you believe you have free will, then you do, and if you don't, then you arn't ready to have free will anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:50 am
|
|
|
|
LoreWren Free will is an interesting subject, but it depends on what you believe. For example, a Baptist cannot have freewill, because they believe that their god knows everything that will happen until the end of time. If he already knows what's going to happen, they don't have free will. If they did, he wouldn't know. For other beliefs, if you think you have it, you probably do. If you think that some great being is controlling everything, you'll act accordingly, thus negating your free will.
Hahhaha. Well take this in. If you are a baptist, then you don't as you said, have free will, because your god knows what you are going to do and can't be wrong, but if you knew that you where going to do what you would do, wouldn't you do it differently?
I can say it 1000 different ways, all I need is a paradox. Keep trying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:22 pm
|
|
|
|
Have you read Grant Morrison's The Invisibles?
"There's no difference between fate and free will. Here I am; put here, come here. No difference, same thing." - Jack, (pg 285 bk 7)
My thought runs to basically this ^.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether we have free will or not, the end result seems to be the same. I like to think we do have it though.
As Kant puts it, in the realm of Practical Reason, we do have free will, because we have to assume we have free will in order for morals, ethics or art to have any value. But in science, we are determined because that is the world of causality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:07 pm
|
|
|
|
As long as we can think we have free will, then no. If we don't actually have it then life is as it is, if we don't have it and suddenly gained it, or if we do have it and suddenly lost it, then we might notice something different.
So from a practical point of view, in terms of things happening, things are going to happen whether we have free will or not. From a moral point of view, if we proved we didn't have free will we would probably have to pretend we did if we wanted to keep our current ways of thinking of morality.
Put here, came here... I'm still here. I just like to think it was my own choices that brought me here. As it was my own actions that brought me here it looks like I have free will. It could be argued that since those actions are all determined by my upbringing, what I've read etc. that they aren't free actions... but it could be argued that they are my actions, and I was free from external constraints and so freely chose to do them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:51 pm
|
|
|
|
Haloquine As long as we can think we have free will, then no. If we don't actually have it then life is as it is, if we don't have it and suddenly gained it, or if we do have it and suddenly lost it, then we might notice something different. So from a practical point of view, in terms of things happening, things are going to happen whether we have free will or not. From a moral point of view, if we proved we didn't have free will we would probably have to pretend we did if we wanted to keep our current ways of thinking of morality. Put here, came here... I'm still here. I just like to think it was my own choices that brought me here. As it was my own actions that brought me here it looks like I have free will. It could be argued that since those actions are all determined by my upbringing, what I've read etc. that they aren't free actions... but it could be argued that they are my actions, and I was free from external constraints and so freely chose to do them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:10 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: but you chose with your own free will what to read, and whether or not to follow what your parents told you, so you would still have free will even if your readings and upbringing shaped every choice you made.
That just assumes we have free will. Mustn't assume the conclusion to argue for it.
Besides, it is possible to argue that our brains are shaped first by genes and then by hormones in the womb, then from the moment we are born we are having our brains wired by things outside our control i.e. everything we come into contact with. (And the same can be said about anything non-physical, if you say we have a soul; we don't choose what our soul is like etc.)
If what we make the choices with is shaped by things outside of our 'free will', then we are caused to 'make' those 'choices' by the shape of our brain/soul/mind... we aren't free to choose to listen to our parents, or ignore what we read, we are caused to do it. If science is right and everything is caused by something previous to itself (determined) then we are caused to do what we do, and it isn't a choice, so we aren't using 'free will' to 'choose' anything.
On the other hand, we can argue that we obviously have free will because we do make choices, even if those choices are determined by something outside ourselves they are still our choices, but then I guess it depends on how 'free' you want your 'free will' and how circular you want your arguing. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:56 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:28 am
|
|
|
|
Ah, what I'd hoped was clear is this; we can see how life is now, right? We don't know whether we do or don't have free will, right? So Whichever it is, I'm still here.
Quote: Haloquine; If we don't actually have it then life is as it is.
Put here, came here. Neither makes any difference to where I actually am. The law of identity, A=A, illustrates this; 'being here'='being here'.
Free will is not the same as determinism/fate. But our being where we are is the same regardless of how we got here. Does that make sense?
If sometimes it was one and sometimes it was the other, then perhaps we might be able to see a difference between being somewhere when we got there under different drives.
Are there cases you can point to and say 'here, X, it was free will, and this is different to this case Y where it was not free will' in these ways? If so, please do. I wonder if this would demonstrate a case of free will, or if it would just show what your definition for free will is.
Or does it? Whether I do or don't have free will, I'm still here. So what would be the difference between the two methods of arriving at this point? There might be a moral issue, or an issue of authenticity. Which is why I think we must assume that we do have it, even if it can be shown that we are determined beings - at which point we might have to be a bit flexible on what we count as free will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:56 am
|
|
|
|
Ok, fair enough... Weather I have free will or not, I am still here, and would still have the same effect, considering that if I did have free will, I couldn't escape it, and If I do have free will then I still don't have to worry about it. that makes sence enough. I am here. But how do I know I am really here? I could be over there, or nowhere at all.
Anyway, I think you're saying, that their arn't any advantages or disadvantages to either possibilities. Any pros, or cons, because I am still here. Interesting...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:04 am
|
|
|
|
Haloquine Quote: but you chose with your own free will what to read, and whether or not to follow what your parents told you, so you would still have free will even if your readings and upbringing shaped every choice you made. That just assumes we have free will. Mustn't assume the conclusion to argue for it. Besides, it is possible to argue that our brains are shaped first by genes and then by hormones in the womb, then from the moment we are born we are having our brains wired by things outside our control i.e. everything we come into contact with. (And the same can be said about anything non-physical, if you say we have a soul; we don't choose what our soul is like etc.) If what we make the choices with is shaped by things outside of our 'free will', then we are caused to 'make' those 'choices' by the shape of our brain/soul/mind... we aren't free to choose to listen to our parents, or ignore what we read, we are caused to do it. If science is right and everything is caused by something previous to itself (determined) then we are caused to do what we do, and it isn't a choice, so we aren't using 'free will' to 'choose' anything. On the other hand, we can argue that we obviously have free will because we do make choices, even if those choices are determined by something outside ourselves they are still our choices, but then I guess it depends on how 'free' you want your 'free will' and how circular you want your arguing.
perhaps i worded my argument wrong, but the poin in bold is the point i was trying to make. i made a choice to listen to mayhem instead of 50 cent. that choice is shaped by my liking of black metal and disliking of rap, but it is still a choice. furthermore, i made a choice to listen to mayhem over bob marley. i love both black metal and reggae, so that choice isn't shaped by my preferences. i simply made the choice, freely, to listen to one instead of the other at this particular moment in time.
now the choice of what music i want to listen to is small and relatively insignificant, but it illustrates my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:15 am
|
|
|
|
So, you're arguing that even though it was causally determined, it was a choice dictated by free will?
I think most people would probably argue that if you couldn't have chosen differently, then it isn't really a choice, and if you were determined to 'choose' mayhem then you couldn't have chosen otherwise, hence no choice. Therefore, given that the ability to choose seems to be how you are thinking of free will (yes? no?) without choice, theres no free will.
If it is a 'random' choice, how is it a free choice? How can you be sure there weren't hundreds of 'subconscious' factors causing you to make that choice?
Unless you want to redefine free will?
It depends on what you think of as free will, if you're happy to say that you had no choice but it was still free will, then thats fine, although it sounds odd and I'd ask why you think that.
Quote: On the other hand, we can argue that we obviously have free will because we do make choices, even if those choices are determined by something outside ourselves they are still our choices...
The question here is whether this actually is still free will... as I said above, if the choices are determined, how are they really choices? Which is why I then said this;
Quote: ...but then I guess it depends on how 'free' you want your 'free will' and how circular you want your arguing.
Its circular because you seem to argue that free will exists because we make choices, and we can make choices because we have free will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
