free will

[User]

wadap? is there free will in your very educated opinion? we had argument, i said nat based on laws of physics, genetics etc, 8-ball and ribot said yes sir there is based on pretty much nothing (non-biased sentence as you can see). give input and please milagros can you give your highly respected insight to this topigros plz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

also tell us why do you think this is so

[teajay]

very tough topic, I would refer to lots of philosophers.

[gimp]

hmm, to NOT believe in free will must mean that you DO believe in destiny correct? because to not believe in free will must mean you think that your future has already been planned out by the series of choices youve already made, and every next choice is simply causal to the variables which have already shaped your life.

i agree with their being no true free will to an extent. i think some people are very easily influenced by their born natural lack of intelligence, or being born into a religious home where they know nothing else, this isnt anybodies fault, just bad luck really.

the only way to test whether or not free will exists or not is to create two of the exact same beings, and make sure that the exact same scenarios occur to both of them at all the same points in time. so exact that each would have to hear see feel smell and taste all of the same things at the same moments of time in their lives. if the two duplicate same beings begin to makes different decisions, then free will exists, however, if they end up living the same lives and making all the same choices, then free will doesnt exist.

such a test is probably impossible to create though. so i dont think the question can ever be 100% figured out.

[chux]

Those people would make the same decisions though. It would just be a copied world, everything in each exactly as it is in the other.

Fact is, I choose to do what I do. That means free will exists. Or maybe what I think Im choosing to do is actually predestined, in which case theres no free will. Either way, in my mind Im doing what Im choosing to do, so whichever is true makes no difference at all. If fate exists, its actively fooling us into thinking it doesnt...so either way our lives will be the same.

...which ultimately means the concept of free will is redundant.

[ribot]

the question is corrupt.

first of all we must determine what is free and what is will.

[Grace]

Free will does not exist, we are always bound by limitations, for instance, if i had perfect control over my actions, i could just 'choose' to fly to pluto without oxygen and without a craft, stay there for 6 weeks and come back alive. It's just not going to happen, then things like the Law and Morals simply limit you further. I wish to murder somebody, who gives a fuck if some old fart eating donuts doesn't want me to, it's a free country.

[8-ball]

there are flies mating on my keyboard
smaxa's argument is invalid

[teajay]

This issue is not simply put off with a few lines of text. Check your local library for this subject and you will see tons of books from philosopher about this.

So you should start with the question what is free will?, then you can go on. I haven't seen any proper definition of free will.

[teajay]

philosophy is dead? err.. you being very ignorant is evidently right indeed.

[gimp]

science is much better in my opinion. philosophy can pose interesting questions, but no solutions come out of it with the same sureness that come out of science. science uses tools that are capable of proving something, such as numbers and actual matter itself, philosophy relies on the tools of logic through language, which does nothing but spur doubt and debate. the scientist will say the universe is finite through math and such. the philosopher will ask, so what happens if you stick your head outside the universe then, as one might wonder? the scientist will answer that the notion is impossible, as anything containing matter is apart of the universe. philosophy isnt dead, it just cant get any answers that everyone can agree on, whereas science can, so science is thus more popular.

[Uncle Milty]

science based on philosophy.
gibbs entropy as "the thing, that makes things happen" o.o

b2t:

in my very opinion things are predestined in all ways.
Environment, experience etc makes us deciding things in the way we do.
BUT

If we took two people with exact the same history, background, experience and environment, I wont say, that those would do all things in a similar way. I guess, that there is such a phenomenon like a controllability that differs from person to person (like you could say some gene that actually conrtolles, how much we are influenced by what happens and so influences our behaving habit). This could be called "character" but is in the end just as firm as a digit.
Could be calculated, if u know how to add environment etc ,if u know all to use facts there.
So we finally have the imagination, that we do things by free will, more than we are just influenced by environment, but it isnt that at all.

I wont call it destiny. Destiny is a too stereotyped word for this. Also the system is way to complex to even be underrstood by a simple human mind, so there is no feeling of "powerlessness" at all.
I have no problem to live with that philosophy of how things work in me.

[Xiphias]

free will isn't that the movie about the orca whale?

[Igge]

This one?

[Xiphias]

That's definitely the one! Thanks for helping me with my memories iGge. Sach movie

[teajay]

Either way, saying I'm completely wrong doesn't hit the "right" button too. But you're right, I'm not saying you should read books from 1800. At this point philosophers are writing books about free will from a non-"science" approach. Just remember that science is one of two scholarly options out there to tackle - or at least handle - this matter. Putting my ego aside, I won't ask you in which elephant's ass your head's been stying, but rather I would put your statement in question: philosophy frowned upon?

[ribot]

im sorry but i dont feel like reading everything here so i will just contribute my own thoughts about the subject.

1. Is it relevant?
The relevance of the topic is decided by practicality. If science finds this or that it doesn't stimulate (usually) much more than the intellect. It happens a lot in philosophy too actually. It's easy to find something for stimulating the intellect, I just prefer to get more out of it than that. Why do I write here? I just feel like it. That makes it relevant.

2. Definition of the problem
At a first glance the words seem to not touch the exact problem. How can a will not be free? Is it a 'will', that feeling in a person that makes her want (to do) something? If it's not free then, it means it has been manipulated?

The question really, isn't it: are we free to act?

3. Rambling
Now we have to find the axioms for making any intelligible reasoning. What are the requisites for making an answer of yes, and what would make the answer no?

3a. If it's yes
If we are free to choose, free to do what we want in life, does it mean, for example, that we have a handful of smileys to the left, and a handful of colours to the right, and we are free to choose any of them to use in a lauta post? It is obvious that we have the freedom to do this, the possiblity to choose any of the colours, any of the smileys, or reject the idea completely. This cannot suffice for the answer to be yes, as it is too obvious.

What is the non-freedom of this case? If we want to make the smileys come out of the screen at this very moment, we cannot. It means that all potential ideas in our imagination cannot be fulfilled. How much is it related to our will being free?

What is not free then? For me it seems like the question is about who is actually making the decisions. If reality is deterministic, then everything that will ever happen is already decided by logics. That means that even if we think we make choises, the choises are already made, and our thoughts or feelings about it are illusory.