General Chat / Free Will Discussion

SA, you complicated what you were trying to say by repeating yourself over and over.
Or maybe I was the only one who was confused after reading it the first time?

I'm going to have to go with "you could always get the spaghetti" too.

I do agree that past events help to determine our actions. All of our experiences make up who we are as conscious beings. When I come up to a red light, if I was taught to stop at red lights and I was raised to be a moral and law abiding citizen there's a good chance I'll stop at the red light. But I don't have to. We're kindof like billiard balls. Once upon a time something struck us and sent us off in one direction. That initial impulse comes from your genes, your social and racial background, etc. But as you go careening across the pool table of life you are going to strike other balls which sends you off in other directions. Each time the events which occured before determine which direction you are heading in and the other balls which strike you alter your course. Those other balls are interactions other people and experiences. But why I believe we still have free will is that at any time we could take a look at the direction we are heading in and change it. Choose the spaghetti instead of the lasagna. People have epiphanies like that all of the time. The past can be all mapped out. You hit this experience and went that way, and the next experience could only happen because you went that way. We are the summation of all our past experiences but that doesn't mean they have to control the choices we make. Like George Castanza's do the opposite philosophy. What if you determine first what choice you would normally make and deliberately not do it? Is that only because your past experiences directed you to choose the opposite so it's still predestination? That seems like a stretch to me - but that theory is shown in Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan (a very good book BTW). I do think our past experiences provide us with a context of choices we could make, if you've never heard of the pyramids you would never make the choice to go visit them for example, and I do think at any one point in time if you have to define what you are as a conscious being the only way to do it would be to draw out a map of every choice you've made up to then and every experience you've had and that's who you are. But the future is still unwritten. We wake up every morning and find ourslves traveling in a certain direction - a certain life trajectory - and it's up to us to continue, turn left, turn right, or turn around. Most of the time we continue straight but the other choices are still there for those willing to take them.

My take on this is to agree with SA. The way we see time is like an illusion: the way we think makes us believe it passes as a constant, but scientists tend to agree that this is not in fact the case. It's hard to say, for instance, time passes slowly, because that's wrong, because you'd have to have another scale of time on which our time passes slowly. But what if time is just a way of measuring the world at certain states, and we just happen to see them one after another, when really all that ever happened and ever will happen is already fixed?

Where I'd tend to disagree would come into the matter of the human identity. What SA is saying would seem to suggest that we are genetic robots, whose DNA will always cause the same action, the same as a computer program. But then how does the sensation of living occur? Can a collection of cells really make you have your own identity? Or is there something we don't understand that gives us this conscience, perhaps similar to Phillip Pullman's Dust? These are questions that simply can't be answered, however much we discover there will always be more. For me, it always comes down to these ideas of infinity. What's 1m when space could go on forever? Perhaps big bangs and the resultant contractions of the universe have happened forever, and always will. Perhaps every nucleus of every atom contains its own nucleus, on infinite scales upwards and downwards forever?

For the record, I don't smoke pot.

This is his "rather intellectual friend" here to clear up a few things. once i get my regiseration approved, i'll post on my name, 'theoldguy.'

free will... aside from its standard english definition, what does it mean? what does it mean in the philosohpical sense? in truth, the term 'free will' is redundant, as any 'will' by the normal standard would imply a freedom. that's why we dont say that computers have will, because we know computers arent free. but with that said, i'll attack the idea of this 'freedom.'

my attack begins with the simple question: freedom from what?

freedom from predeterminism? freedom from physics/chemistry? probably both, since we'd all probably agree that the majority of (macro) physics is seen as predetermined. when we add fire to paper, the paper is predetermined to burn provided those are the only variables.

so are we free to choose despite the physical occurances at place inside of our bodies and minds? i say no, and i'll argue that point right now.

first, i'll start off by asking, who allegedly has free will? humans, right? only humans? if so, what makes our actions so different than apes, dogs, birds, fish, etc? if not only humans, then do all life forms have free will? only mammals? only vertebrates? does a single-celled animal have free will? if so, evolutionary science would dictate that these life forms were formed from nothing more than chemical bonds and self-replicating molecules (abiogenesis). Did the protein-based RNA molecules that were (probably) the basis of all life have free will? if not, then what difference is there between the RNA molecule and its future generations that evolved into you and me? if so, do all molecules, like water, have free will? if not, what makes RNA different from those molecules besides self-replication, which is an entirely physical process explained by scientific properties? if all molecules, like those that form water, do have free will, then we must return to the question, "what are we free from?" and the answer will be nothing, because there are no standards by which something would not be considered free.

second, i'll talk about anti-depressants and other drugs. by introducing foreign chemicals into our bodies, our behaviors change, right? do we choose for our behavior to change, or does it just happen? well, if i slipped someone some prozac without them knowing it, they would surely have an altered behavior, so no, the change is not voluntary. the change just happens because of the physical properties of the drugs and our bodies. knowing this, we have to acknowledge that our bodies already have naturally produced chemicals within. we have hormones, and others, and my favorite: dopemine. these chemicals, depending on the balances between them, dictate our behavior. when someone has a severe chemical imbalance, their behavior will be 'off' and we will give them medicine, like prozac, to balance the chemicals.

so we know that our bodies and minds are physical and subject to physical changes based on variables, such as drugs and whatnot. what does this have to do with free will? to know this, we have to understand that everymoment of each of our lives are filled with thousands, millions, maybe even billions of variables or more. everything from memories, the time of day, the weather, our chemical balances, our senses, our age, our global location, our health, has an affect on us whether we know it or not. knowing this, i will begin a demonstration that i will ask you to picture inside your head.

picture a television set. on the left side of the screen, picture a person sitting in a restaurant about to order off the menu. imagine all the variables at hand. on the right side of the screen, picture the same man in the same restaurant with all the same variables. now pick up your remote control, and hit play. do they both order the same item? if so, do we have free will? if no, why not? remember that ALL the variables are the same, even their thoughts.

anyway, chris and i are going to austin, so think on that, and get back to me.

i'll make sure to let you guys know what happens in austin this time.

Where I'd tend to disagree would come into the matter of the human identity. What SA is saying would seem to suggest that we are genetic robots, whose DNA will always cause the same action, the same as a computer program.

No the actions won't always be the same, but it is all pre-determined. It's not like we're robots, it actually goes a lot farther than humans and cats and dogs, this extends to planets, stars, galaxies, and the entire universe. There is only one timeline.

When I come up to a red light, if I was taught to stop at red lights and I was raised to be a moral and law abiding citizen there's a good chance I'll stop at the red light. But I don't have to.

Very fucking true.

anyway, chris and i are going to austin, so think on that, and get back to me.

Hmm, I will think about that because you've made a lot of good arguments. Not fool proof arguments, but it will take me some thinking to organize some objections.

When I come up to a red light, if I was taught to stop at red lights and I was raised to be a moral and law abiding citizen there's a good chance I'll stop at the red light. But I don't have to.

james again:

i dont think you get it. its all about the variables. a variable for running the red light might be that you are running from a cop, or need to get to the hospital, or you're just feeling gutsy. all those things are differences in your mindset that you have no control over.

take all the variables into account in your next attempt at a refutation, because when you try to simplify the situation, you run into the easy-out of 'free will'

similarly, someone who didn't know all the variables of a video game's AI characters might think that they have free will. do the bots in counterstrike have free will? they could go around to the bridge, or they could go the other way throught the alley. is that free will just because they could do one or the other?

similarly, someone who didn't know all the variables of a video game's AI characters might think that they have free will. do the bots in counterstrike have free will? they could go around to the bridge, or they could go the other way throught the alley. is that free will just because they could do one or the other?

Okay, so what's the difference? An AI character has several possible outcomes of one moment programmed into it. Go left? Right? Forward? Ironically, this example works better with RollerCoaster Tycoon. One of the little AI 'peeps' comes to a fork in the path. He can choose to go forward and ride the rollercoaster or he can go, let's say, left, to maybe, the bathroom. K. Here's where it gets interesting. And believe me on this shit cause I've studied those peeps. Why would he turn left? Cause he has to go to the bathroom, right? Yep. Almost every single peep who turns left has one of those "I need to use the restroom" thought bubbles. But get this: For one thing, not all peeps that have the thought bubble go left--and some of them go straight for the rollercoaster! And then, a couple peeps that don't need a restroom go left--as if to make sure it's not just the restroom down there! Sounds a lot like people, huh? There's only a certain amount of things humans can do in one moment, too, right? So, are we really just little AI bots running around the universe? Or, on the flip side, do AI bots really have what we call "free will"?

This is his "rather intellectual friend" here to clear up a few things.  once i get my regiseration approved, i'll post on my name, 'theoldguy.'

free will... aside from its standard english definition, what does it mean? what does it mean in the philosohpical sense? in truth, the term 'free will' is redundant, as any 'will' by the normal standard would imply a freedom. that's why we dont say that computers have will, because we know computers arent free. but with that said, i'll attack the idea of this 'freedom.'

my attack begins with the simple question: freedom from what?

freedom from predeterminism? freedom from physics/chemistry? probably both, since we'd all probably agree that the majority of (macro) physics is seen as predetermined. when we add fire to paper, the paper is predetermined to burn provided those are the only variables.

so are we free to choose despite the physical occurances at place inside of our bodies and minds? i say no, and i'll argue that point right now.

first, i'll start off by asking, who allegedly has free will? humans, right? only humans? if so, what makes our actions so different than apes, dogs, birds, fish, etc? if not only humans, then do all life forms have free will? only mammals? only vertebrates? does a single-celled animal have free will? if so, evolutionary science would dictate that these life forms were formed from nothing more than chemical bonds and self-replicating molecules (abiogenesis). Did the protein-based RNA molecules that were (probably) the basis of all life have free will? if not, then what difference is there between the RNA molecule and its future generations that evolved into you and me? if so, do all molecules, like water, have free will? if not, what makes RNA different from those molecules besides self-replication, which is an entirely physical process explained by scientific properties? if all molecules, like those that form water, do have free will, then we must return to the question, "what are we free from?" and the answer will be nothing, because there are no standards by which something would not be considered free.

second, i'll talk about anti-depressants and other drugs. by introducing foreign chemicals into our bodies, our behaviors change, right? do we choose for our behavior to change, or does it just happen? well, if i slipped someone some prozac without them knowing it, they would surely have an altered behavior, so no, the change is not voluntary. the change just happens because of the physical properties of the drugs and our bodies. knowing this, we have to acknowledge that our bodies already have naturally produced chemicals within. we have hormones, and others, and my favorite: dopemine. these chemicals, depending on the balances between them, dictate our behavior. when someone has a severe chemical imbalance, their behavior will be 'off' and we will give them medicine, like prozac, to balance the chemicals.

so we know that our bodies and minds are physical and subject to physical changes based on variables, such as drugs and whatnot. what does this have to do with free will? to know this, we have to understand that everymoment of each of our lives are filled with thousands, millions, maybe even billions of variables or more. everything from memories, the time of day, the weather, our chemical balances, our senses, our age, our global location, our health, has an affect on us whether we know it or not. knowing this, i will begin a demonstration that i will ask you to picture inside your head.

picture a television set. on the left side of the screen, picture a person sitting in a restaurant about to order off the menu. imagine all the variables at hand. on the right side of the screen, picture the same man in the same restaurant with all the same variables. now pick up your remote control, and hit play. do they both order the same item? if so, do we have free will? if no, why not? remember that ALL the variables are the same, even their thoughts.

anyway, chris and i are going to austin, so think on that, and get back to me.

hmmm... interesting.


You see, "free will" is a human construct. It's the name we have for retaining 2 or more different options outside the visible variables. Like say, if you came to a choice that was exactly the same on both sides, both the same exact variables, and you had to make a choice, which would you "choose"?. Obviously, if the moment has been orchestrated to begin with, then no matter how many times you were presented that situation with the exact same variables, you'd pick the exact same choice...

but what about that choice being made to begin with? You had to make that choice for it to BE predetermined at all, otherwise, the choice would never have been a part of the the predetermined path. This non-existant choice, by the variables intrinsic to the path that does exist, in undeniably non-existent in every possible manner. But this conjecture into the possibility of this choice existing is a state of awareness to begin with. Chemicals in your brain dancing around, telling you what to do... sure, but what if they told you to make a choice? What a strange paradox that would be, eh? But it's only as believable as having no random functions to be existing, because predetermination would negate the very notion of randomness. Randomness then, is a "non-visible" variable. Non-visible variables are then what give the illusion of "free will". So as long as there are non-visible variables, the human construct of free will does exist, because we let it.

That's why you can pick the spaghetti or the lasagna, and still feel it was your choice either way. It's not willful self delusion at all, it's simply helpless ignorance of an unseeable truth, and I for one welcome it for what it is.

So, I think I'll get the spaghetti. (And yes, I thought I basically said the same thing in my first post, because I thought it would be obvious... I just keep forgetting that people can't read my mind )

Oh, and the OTHER way to describe free will... is that the construct of free will offers comfort to the human mind and is indicative of the frailness in the human condition. It's strange that having more than 1 choice, even if that other choice will never be taken, makes such a big difference to humans. If you only have one choice (or, no choice really), then it is viewed more negatively than if you "chose it" from more than 1 distinguishable outcome. It's human nature to break free or deny imprisonment, reguardless of the positives.

I figure it this way...

If you know a friend, know him REALLY well, you can almost predict what he or she will do in certain situations. Take this to the infinity power, and you'll see that one really can know what choice is about to be made.

There is no such thing as chance.

When I flip a coin, it comes out a certain way because of the laws of physics, gravity, how I flip it, etc. If I flip a coin the EXACT same way 100,000,000 times, same height, same rotation, lands in exact same place, etc, it will land the same every time.

So, if we restarted the universe back to the big bang, EXACT same conditions...would we still be here discussing this on NE? I beleive the answer is "yes"...

Blitz, that was a very intelligent response, and I appreiciate you going into depth.

However, I think this is an issue where either side isn't going to change their mind, so it's rather pointless to argue it. I know you're not going to see it my way, and I'll never see it your way, and I don't hold anything against you for it. I actually appreciated your reply and I enjoyed reading it because it's nice to know that people are actually putting their minds to something.

I think the issue is 2 sided

the first issue, is this: "Is life predetermined?"

If life isn't predetermined, then there MUST be "incomplete variables". Variables that are left specifically to be filled by an entity outside the scope of time and space, and all it's variables. This would allow for "choice", because the variable is yours to determine, and is not predetermined. Now, if they existed, the problem is that they would have to exist in every possible outcome of every possible clashing of variables, since nothing would be predetermined. The usual deniability of this clause comes from the argument "well, we can say that if I cut you, you will bleed", which is a situation agreed upon by most humans as an undeniable outcome. But is it really? Do humans have the capacity to judge the "undeniable" quality of this outcome? Since humans cannot detect all possible variables, can you really say we are fit to determine the possibility of an outcome so completely? Maybe we would be right to assume that 99.999999~% of the time, the possibility of this outcome will be to bleed. But the unseeable percentage (also, oddly enough, not a real number ) has an effect that a human does not have the capacity to guage. So, since we can't say for certain that predetermination is the correct assumption, the question becomes unsolvable. To give you an idea of what IS solvable, 2+2=4 is always an EXACT truth. You cannot deny it, since all the variables can be accounted for by humans with ease.

The second issue is: "Does choice exist?"

In a non-predetermined existence, choice is the only means which an outcome can exist. Two variables, undetermined until the point at which they intersect, and THEN it is determined what path existence will take. That is, if predetermination is false. Reality can be imagined within this imaginary construct. The difference between "choice", and the human construct of choice is that humans possess an awareness of the predilection in the moment that it comes to fruition. But since the variables described are not visible to us, this can never be proved or disproved (well, disproved as far as I know, since I don't know all the variables ).

Now, in a predetermined existence, choice does not exist, except as a human construct. All the variables in the universe decide our actions for us. But lets talk about something I'm doing right now... I'm unaware of what I may do in the future, but the 2 visible outcomes of my life at this point are going the music route, or the animation route. I don't know which I will take, since I can't understand all the variables involved. But, if I sit here and wonder about it, the human construct of choice FEELS real enough. I can FEEL I have a choice, a dillemma. That was the point of my last post.

So to sum up, If life is predetermined, then atleast humans don't have the capacity to feel anything but their own will and understanding, and go about their lives making "choices" and such. Even if it is a mathematical "sham" to think we have choice, it doesn't really have any TRUE bearing on how we will live our lives. After all, you still have the tell the waiter, in your own words... just which you will have: the spaghetti, or the lasagna.



P.S. - I actually think we agree on the subject of predetermination, as far as it exists and what it would be if it does exist. I think I simply went into more detail into the effects of this thinking than you have so far

originally posted by Blitz-sama
If life isn't predetermined, then there MUST be "incomplete variables".  Variables that are left specifically to be filled by an entity outside the scope of time and space, and all it's variables.  This would allow for "choice", because the variable is yours to determine, and is not predetermined.

AKA: A soul.

The problem of the soul is that there is no proof of it, and there is also no reason to assert the existence of one. We understand the complexities of the humans body and brain and know that it is complex enough to sustain itself without the need of a supernatural entity.

Intelligence, consciousness, morality, and personality can all be rationally explained through sciences such as evolution. The "soul" is an ancient construct used to substitute reality. Instead of asserting a soul, it would have been more correct to simply say, "I don't know how X works." Thankfully, more and more people know the value of "I don't know" thanks to the scientific method.

EX Q: Where did the universe come from?
EX A: Aside from asserting that the universe came from somewhere, I'd say that I don't know. I will not assert an answer, such as God, simply to fill the gap.

So to sum up, If life is predetermined, then atleast humans don't have the capacity to feel anything but their own will and understanding, and go about their lives making "choices" and such.  Even if it is a mathematical "sham" to think we have choice, it doesn't really have any TRUE bearing on how we will live our lives.  After all, you still have the tell the waiter, in your own words... just which you will have: the spaghetti, or the lasagna.

Absolutely. Some societies made the mistake of thinking that predeterminism meant that punishments were not fair, since we can't control our actions. Why should I get punished for murder if it wasn't my fault? Well, it was my fault. It was the same way it would have been had a robot killed the person. Would we allow the robot to go on killing people simply because we didn't believe it to have free will? No. We would, in effect, punish the robot, either by isolation (jail), repair (psychiatric ward), or by demolition (death penalty).

So no, understanding that the universe is more-than-likely predetermined does not mean that we should alter our behavior. The negation of "Free Will" is simply a practical use of Occam's Razor, a logical tool used to 'slice off' unnecessary entities.

this conversation is very interesting. I seem to have understanding, (or at least I'm creating my own) but don't know how to say it...

I see a rain stick, and we are the little beads falling toward the bottom. We can do what we want, but we have an "interia" that pushes us either left or right. We live our lives, but none the less we end up at the bottom, only to be turned up-side down again by God or what-not, but that's something else

I think SA is thinking "hey, we are going where we are going, and we have no 'choice' in the matter"

And I'm think "hey, we are going where we are going, lets enjoy finding out where that is exactly"

Atleast, that's what I'm getting from his and his friends' posts

And I'm think "hey, we are going where we are going, lets enjoy finding out where that is exactly"

hey man that's how i feel

I think SA is thinking "hey, we are going where we are going, and we have no 'choice' in the matter"

And I'm think "hey, we are going where we are going, lets enjoy finding out where that is exactly"

Atleast, that's what I'm getting from his and his friends' posts

We have no "choice" in the matter, but odds are, our brains will still operate as they always have, as if we did have free will. All our brain does is calculate risks and benefits in a realm of probabilities so that it can best survive. Actions are taken accordingly. It works the same way you might expect a 'computer' of our complexity to act, and how that is labeled "free," I don't know.

But live your life as if you do have choice. Do not be fooled into thinking that lacking free will means you have no morals. Morals help us with calculating risks and benefits through shortcuts. But please be careful. Base your morals in logic. There are a lot of people out there that would like to lead you to believe that you are a bad person because you do things that, logically, aren't very bad at all. They then ask if they can "save" you. It's like telling someone they have a (fake) disease and selling them the cure. It's a scam. Beware. Your brain is more than capable of figuring out right and wrong (thanks to evolution), so use it! Did your brain tell you, "I need to be saved," or did some creepy guy in a suit tell you that? Do you believe masturbation is a sin, or did your mother tell you that? Do you think cuss words are bad, or does society tell you that they are?