• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do You Believe in Free Will?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When someone cheats in an otherwise exclusive relationship, did they choose to do it, or was it predetermined and unavoidable?

If people aren't in control of their actions, why do we hold them accountable or responsible for them? Wouldn't that be unfair and unjust?

We don't hold them accountable or responsible - we change the paradigm by which we approach justice.

We provide disincentives for certain forms of behaviour, and enforce them to ensure that the disincentives function.

The level of disincentive set should be such that it disincentivizes for rational actors. Setting the disincentive greater than that creates needless harm - the disincentive is no longer effective but punitive in nature. Nor should we expect irrational actors to heed disincentives.

Rather we should approach these sort of problems from a broader, multi-factorial base - preferably utilizing proactive preventative strategies that also serve to enhance overall quality of life.
 
Destiny is a more interesting question.

I women dropped at hat at the cashier line yesterday at the supermarket. I didn't say anything because I was being a douche. She came back to the store five minutes later and got it. Wether or not I said something, she was going to always get it anyway.
 
I do. I don't really have any reason to not believe in free will.
I believe our decisions are influenced by various things, but ultimately we make the choice.
 
It's a tough question.

Psychologically is there some sort of free will part of the brain or are we products of our lives?

If you subjected someone to the exact same experiences and they had the exact same brain, would they always 100% make the same decisions regardless of how small they are? Are we play-doh to our experiences or to ourselves?

Personally I think the reality, like many things is some weird mixture of both. Free will exists in conjunction with destiny. We are products of our lives, our experiences, but we can still make choices about things. We are play-doh to both our experiences and ourselves.

But alas it's not something we know for certain. Just speculation.
 
The broad meaning of free will is that we have control over our own actions, that our future is ours to choose. You could argue that the social construct gets in the way of this for many people, but that's a different question entirely.

The largest problem with determining whether or not free will exists, is that we can't see the future. Given the idea of free will is knowing whether we have any choice in how our lives will play out, the only way to truly know is to be able to see the future, which in itself would cause a dilemma. That dilemma being that knowing the future, could cause you to intentionally try to avoid it, or, could cause it to play out as you saw. Either way you would still never really know whether what you did changed the future, or whether seeing the future caused it to play out as was intended anyway.

You could say that looking back at the past gives you some idea, as you can see events where you or others would have had a choice, and you believe you made the clear choice of one path, the problem that lies there is, if free will doesn't exist, you would have always chosen that path.

To me this means that free will has essentially the same problem as other concepts like consciousness, we simply don't have the objective ability to view it in any way that gives us any real answers about it. At least currently anyway.
 
I do. I don't really have any reason to not believe in free will.
I believe our decisions are influenced by various things, but ultimately we make the choice.
But the decision making process leaves no room for free will.

When you have to chose, you will try to pick the best option according to some rule, but you didn't get to pick this rule to follow. And even if you did, you cannot account for why you have chosen this rule, because you would be doing a decision making process, thus needing another rule you didn't get to chose. This will go back ad infinitum to your first thoughts, that come in to being from things you didn't get to chose (your place of birth, family, time of birth). And we can keep playing this game on your parents (not having a choice on why they chose the things they chose) and their parents, until we reach the first living cell on this planet, which also had no choice in the matter of existing or not.
 
But the decision making process leaves no room for free will.

When you have to chose, you will try to pick the best option according to some rule, but you didn't get to pick this rule to follow. And even if you did, you cannot account for why you have chosen this rule, because you would be doing a decision making process, thus needing another rule you didn't get to chose. This will go back ad infinitum to your first thoughts, that come in to being from things you didn't get to chose (your place of birth, family, time of birth). And we can keep playing this game on your parents (not having a choice on why they chose the things they chose) and their parents, until we reach the first living cell on this planet, which also had no choice in the matter of existing or not.

Perfect.
 
I do not know whether we have free will or not. Whether we do depends (among other things) which interpretation of quantum theory is "correct". I personally lean more towards "everything is predetermined" and the "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I don't feel strongly either way.

uqdJrLk.png

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3952
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2524#comic

Great video on the topic of interpretations of Quantum Theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZacggH9wB7Y

My pragmatic view is this: Does it really matter? As long as no one is capable of accurately predicting the future in enough detail, we will never be able to tell the difference, and thus it should not influence our day to day behaviour.

On the question of personal guilt if everything is predetermined, again a pragmatic approach: Apprehension and punishment of criminals should only serve to prevent them (and others) from doing what they were doing and in the best case lead them on track to be a functioning member of society again.

Not to get revenge, not to simply punish them for being bad, but because that is what we as a society have agreed is best in the long term for most of us as a society and hopefully for the criminals themselves as well.
 
My general thought is that we probably don't have free will, but we have something that is close enough that I don't find the endless neuroscience/philosophy debate on the topic particularly as important as many people seem to.
 
But the decision making process leaves no room for free will.

When you have to chose, you will try to pick the best option according to some rule, but you didn't get to pick this rule to follow. And even if you did, you cannot account for why you have chosen this rule, because you would be doing a decision making process, thus needing another rule you didn't get to chose. This will go back ad infinitum to your first thoughts, that come in to being from things you didn't get to chose (your place of birth, family, time of birth). And we can keep playing this game on your parents (not having a choice on why they chose the things they chose) and their parents, until we reach the first living cell on this planet, which also had no choice in the matter of existing or not.
I disagree.
When I choose what I want to eat for dinner out of a list of things, it is my choice. You can say that I chose what I chose because of my likes and dislikes that come from my genetics and how I was raised, or because of the last time I ate the food, etc but ultimately, when presented with a list of options, I believe I make the choice, and there is no possible way to prove otherwise.
The lack of free will is an interesting philosophical position, but at the end of the day that's all it is. There is no reason, or strong enough evidence, for me to believe that 100% of our actions and thoughts are predetermined.
 
I disagree.
When I choose what I want to eat for dinner out of a list of things, it is my choice. You can say that I chose what I chose because of my likes and dislikes that come from my genetics and how I was raised, or because of the last time I ate the food, etc but ultimately, when presented with a list of options, I believe I make the choice, and there is no possible way to prove otherwise.
The lack of free will is an interesting philosophical position, but at the end of the day that's all it is. There is no reason, or strong enough evidence, for me to believe that 100% of our actions and thoughts are predetermined.

Who or what is the you of your mind that is the chooser? What process? You have vaguely defined it as "my choice", but where are your grounds to assume there's a part of your brain that allows you to be such an agent?

It's really no different than saying "I believe I have a soul because I am me". It's vague enough for people to believe, yet not solid enough to stand pressure.

Unless you can prove an entity or state of the brain that enters the "chooser" mode that can also be conceptualized to be your image of self (hence the "I choose"), there is no way anything you're saying stands up to fuck all. It infers a conscious chooser that is separate in a way from conscious and unconscious processes that build up to the decision. I don't think I need to be the one to highlight such a fallacy. :P
 
There's no such thing as true free w...

Free will doesn't exist. End of.

Any beliefs in it are paramount to supernatural woo woo bullshit. For example, you need a soul or a separate ego entity to have the ability of free will. You can only ever reason for one with religion, and that's a miasmic sore the human race still hasn't gotten rid of.

Believing in free will really is no different than being a flat earthist or climate change denier. It gets very frustrating to see people believe in this nonsense, because it feeds unaccountable views of personhood and makes various social problems even more problematic. Consider how many people think poverty is a character choice, for it's a matter of isolated willpower because there's a "you" that can transcend influence, conditions, and experience, yet this is all one ever actually is.

Free will is one of the stupidest fucking things to believe in, if we're being honest about what we know about reality. You need a separate self to have free will, and any notion of a separate "you" that is somehow isolated, divided, and 'fixed' in the body is abstraction and pure nonsense. It's too dualistic to be correct, yet most people on earth actually believe in it. It's bizarre.

what he said
 
Sure, but only if you take a computer program that makes a choice based on established variables, allow it to make said choice, and call that free will.
 
I disagree.
When I choose what I want to eat for dinner out of a list of things, it is my choice. You can say that I chose what I chose because of my likes and dislikes that come from my genetics and how I was raised, or because of the last time I ate the food, etc but ultimately, when presented with a list of options, I believe I make the choice, and there is no possible way to prove otherwise.
But i agree that you are the one making the choice. I'm just saying that you are not in control of the choice you make.
The lack of free will is an interesting philosophical position, but at the end of the day that's all it is. There is no reason, or strong enough evidence, for me to believe that 100% of our actions and thoughts are predetermined.
There's less (zero) evidence for free will. Why do you believe that?
My general thought is that we probably don't have free will, but we have something that is close enough that I don't find the endless neuroscience/philosophy debate on the topic particularly as important as many people seem to.
You haven't put much thought on the matter.

You have to understand the implications of no free will. Without free will we cannot account for our sense of self, as an acting agent, as anything more then a illusion.
Everything you think, your desires, your fears, likes, dislikes are just emergent properties of a causal chain of our reality, not really yours. When you understand that, you can let go of the chains that hold you on this illusion of self, and you can become a better person by reevaluating everything you and other people do using this perspective. You will stop holding people at fault for wrong things they do, and will try to just understand why did they do that, and what you can do to help them improve. And you can do the same for yourself.
It's paradoxically freeing to stop believing in free will.
 
Rogan had a guy on his podcast recently that made me believe we don't. He (in a shortened dumb guy parrot of what was actually said) basically said we do not because if we were all raised in the same way and 100% the same way we would have made the exact same choices through life. Plus you didn't pick your genetic makeup or parents. So free will is an illusion because of the difference in people.

Here is the podcast with Sam Harris that I was referencing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnlBW5INYg

I could have it wrong it was a while ago I listened to this.
 
But i agree that you are the one making the choice. I'm just saying that you are not in control of the choice you make.

There's less (zero) evidence for free will. Why do you believe that?

You haven't put much thought on the matter.

You have to understand the implications of no free will. Without free will we cannot account for our sense of self, as an acting agent, as anything more then a illusion.
Everything you think, your desires, your fears, likes, dislikes are just emergent properties of a causal chain of our reality, not really yours. When you understand that, you can let go of the chains that hold you on this illusion of self, and you can become a better person by reevaluating everything you and other people do using this perspective. You will stop holding people at fault for wrong things they do, and will try to just understand why did they do that, and what you can do to help them improve. And you can do the same for yourself.
It's paradoxically freeing to stop believing in free will.

Real talk, this is beautiful stuff. Said it better than I would have. The illusion of free will, of choice, and even of a self are not defeating games, but paradoxically, some of the most liberating realizations we can grasp of reality. It's just we have a lot of thoughts, notions, and concepts that make it seem so impossible to even entertain. This begins with an incorrect perception of separation between things, to infer division far more that differentiation. Then there's the subject-object myth at play, which layers on that like an onion.

I'd like to offer an excerpt from Greg Goode on this topic, and while it comes from a nondual perspective of awareness/consciousness, perhaps the way he wrote it may make it digestible to other users here. I'll be cutting out the not-self stuff from his message, largely because the belief in a separate self should be its own thread on GAF. And yes, I'd be there, too. ;)

As an aside friend, have we spoken before on GAF?

The question of free will is from the perspective of the person. Does the person have free will? Many of the person's actions are forced or determined by factors over which it has no control. Some of these actions are accompanied by the feeling of being lived, of being in the flow, in the "zone." People often count these as the best times. But are at least some of the person's decisions and actions freely chosen? To establish free will, as is discussed in Philosophy 101 classes everywhere, it is not necessary to show that every action is free. Even one free action would be sufficient.

Case 1: "Will that be coffee or tea?" "Hmmm, let me think.... I'll have tea, thanks."

Case 2: (Thought bubble rising:) "I'd love to take a walk in the beautiful woods. I'd like to surround myself with peace and serenity and inquire into my true nature." (Putting on hiking boots, opening the camper door and stepping out), "Here I go."

From the perspective of the person, if the decision process is not analyzed, the actions and decisions in both cases above seem to be perfect examples of free will. Upon analysis however, a free action and a free chooser cannot be found. A thought comes, followed by a desire, followed by a decision, followed by an action. Tracing backwards, the action is controlled by the decision, the decision is controlled by the desire, the desire is prompted by the thought. The thought arises spontaneously, itself unbidden, un-asked-for, unchosen. First the thought is not there, then it is. Nowhere in this process can a free will be found. Nowhere can a freely-acting chooser be found.

It is even too much to say that the actions, decisions, desires and thoughts can control or prompt each other. These cause-and-effect dynamics are not even observed. Rather, they arise as inferences and conclusions about what happened, that is, they arise as thoughts that rise and fall.

In something like Case 1, the decision might even be accompanied by a small feeling of freedom, lightness, and spaciousness. And maybe also accompanied by a thought, "I'm choosing tea but I could freely choose coffee instead." But the feeling of freedom and the thought "I could" also arise unbidden. That is, the feeling of freedom is not freely chosen.

The person is not the locus of freedom.
 
I just read this quote from Sam Harris:

“Losing a belief in free will has not made me a fatalist - in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom. My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and indelible. There is no telling how much I might change in the future. Just as one wouldn't draw a lasting conclusion about oneself on the basis of a brief experience of indigestion, one needn't do so on a basis of how one has thought or behaved for vast stretches of time in the past. A creative change of inputs to the system - learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention - may radically transform one's life. Becoming sensitive to the background causes of one's thoughts and feelings can -paradoxically- allow for greater creative control over one's life. This understanding reveals you to be a biochemical puppet, of course, but it also allows you to grab hold of one of your strings.” Sam Harris

Its paradoxal how knowing that you don'tt have free will actually make you more empowered.

I am blown away
 
Whether or not we think we have free will is irrelevant. Technically, no we don't have free will. Our actions are the result of our experiences, their influence on the structure of our brain, the current situation we're in, and our knowledge of it.

That being said, there are so many factors to consider in interpreting that that the nuts and bolts of why we do what we do from second to second isn't something we can keep track of. So, it certainly seems like we're making choices, from our perspective.
 
A few people have responded to my question, but I feel they all dodge what I actually asked.

If one's actions are predetermined, how can you deter anyone from them? This has basically nothing to do with the perceptual reason prison exists, or the intent behind its implementation.

If you're claiming that society creates rules that influence your choices, than you'd then have to claim that people do indeed have agency in their choices.

If you claim that because those rules exist, you must not have a choice, then there's no such thing as a rational actor, and punishing someone is unjust and reform can't happen because everyone's actions are already determined.

/shrug

It's a funny thing to discuss.
Peace be with you all.
 
I just read this quote from Sam Harris:



Its paradoxal how knowing that you don'tt have free will actually make you more empowered.

I am blown away

The exact same thing happens with self transcendence or ego death, which Sam has also spoken about. By losing the sense of being an agent in the body trapped in the head and in the conscious thoughts of "me" as an image, you become more aware and in tune that you are, at the minimum, the whole body at work. You're more like a wave that flows instead of specific water molecules in it, if that makes sense. Instead of fixing yourself as the impressions, the contents that appear within awareness, you then flip and identify more with the aware space in which they appear in. This is profound and quite a change from the way we typically think, especially for us Westerners, who still adhere to social views of a Christian ego. This view of awareness being prior to contents appearing in it also correlates to arguments Harris and Pinker both allude to with the brain, but I know personally that Sam has spoken a better deal about that in Waking Up and on his podcast. Sam argues, and I would agree with, that happiness and peace can exist prior to external influences, conditions, and stimuli in this state of realization. Consider for just one moment how odd that seems to the way we normally look at the world and happiness as something to be acquired through time, effort, and a future. This is what gurus mean when they about "now" being pure bliss and peace, regardless of any wooly claims they make at higher concepts about the universe about Ishvara or deities; they're talking about a state of 'not-self', of ego death.

The problem however, like free will, is that accepting that state of self as fleeting and illusory seems like the most destructive thing you can ever do. There have been users on this very forum that I have conversed on the subject with, and they were so attached to such beliefs that they would try and argue suicide if their conceptions and notions of selfhood and control were bogus. "If I'm not me and what I think I am, why should I live?" and familiar retorts like that. This alludes to what I said earlier, where belief drives behavior: if you think of yourself as only the impressions in your awareness, cut off from everything else, you're a receding flame that you try to continue to fuel. No way in hell are you escaping that well, or in peace, so long as you hang onto those concepts. Your lens from the very beginning is incompatible what "what is" of reality, so it'd be better to see through it instead of trying to see the world from it.
 
I do not accept the notion of free will, primarily because there is no room for free will to exist in the physical theories that everything is governed by. Also, neuroscience research does seem to suggest that the choice has already been made before the person is consciously aware of it.

However, there may be some merit to the compatibilist view where "free will" and "choice" are useful tools in how we talk about day-to-day life. Similar to how temperature is not a fundamental part of reality but useful for talking about really complicated systems. I have also seen the analogy for words like "baseball" - where it would be a pain in the ass to constantly refer to "baseball" in terms of its fundamental constituents, so we make a higher-level word, "baseball".

If you're claiming that society creates rules that influence your choices, than you'd then have to claim that people do indeed have agency in their choices.

This is just not true. Computers, for instance, can be programmed for things like reinforcement learning and learn how to drive or play a game. However, it certainly shouldn't be regarded with free will or agency as we know that it simply uses layered mathematical algorithms.
 
Whether or not we think we have free will is irrelevant. Technically, no we don't have free will. Our actions are the result of our experiences, their influence on the structure of our brain, the current situation we're in, and our knowledge of it.

That being said, there are so many factors to consider in interpreting that that the nuts and bolts of why we do what we do from second to second isn't something we can keep track of. So, it certainly seems like we're making choices, from our perspective.

This is what I am getting out of this. Interesting to think about I guess.

Reminds me of the topic of destiny, though maybe it's the same thing? We can always look backwards and say "ah, but you were destined to do that/change your mind/choose this over that" but we can never look forward with certainty because that is impossible. Because the past has already happened and the choice has already been made, it's not possible to argue anything else other than "that was always going to happen" because yeah, it already happened.

I don't think it's possible to get to the point where we can somehow account for ALL DATA POINTS that makes up a person's choice (their entire lives, brains, ancestry, circumstance, etc), so by all accounts it feels to me like it's close enough to a free choice. Everyone's just trying to do their best here, man!
 
Sure, but also I believe life is a mix of fate, destiny, karma and free will.

No way humans don't have the ability to change what is 'written' already, be it from cosmic beings or the diety you believe in.

However, some shit will happen that nature, evolution or fate has decided, no matter what we do as human beings/species. Best we can do in those situations is cope and get through it
 
A few people have responded to my question, but I feel they all dodge what I actually asked.

If one's actions are predetermined, how can you deter anyone from them? This has basically nothing to do with the perceptual reason prison exists, or the intent behind its implementation.

We lack the capability to map out every second of a person's thoughts in relation to their environment(you'd literally have to keep track of everything on earth, and even the light of the stars may change a person's decisions ever-so-slightly), so personal responsibility still exists.

And anything that could calculate how people will act in any given situation would have a fundamental flaw: It would be unable to account for how its own existence effects the world around it. Like, let's say a gigantic calculator tells you in 5 minutes you will touch your nose. The calculator came to this conclusion in a world where it didn't tell you to touch your nose. The act of telling you you will touch your nose has invalidated its own calculations, and now, given this information you will probably chose to not touch your nose in five minutes, to spite the calculator, when all of the actions that lead to that event, including the calculator, were pre-determined.

If you're claiming that society creates rules that influence your choices, than you'd then have to claim that people do indeed have agency in their choices.

You don't have to claim that people have agency because society made decisions to affect that agency. Ask yourself: why did society create rules to influence the actions of others? Because the environment and the brains of those who create society came to the conclusion it was necessary. There was no choice from the start there.

If you claim that because those rules exist, you must not have a choice, then there's no such thing as a rational actor, and punishing someone is unjust and reform can't happen because everyone's actions are already determined.

It's not because society has rules that you don't have a choice, the lack of choice goes even further back than that. Society has rules as a result of a series of physical reactions dating back to the big bang not because of any individual will.

But, as to my first post in this thread, it really doesn't matter if you think you have free will or not. It's completely irrelevant, it has no consequence from our perspective.

/shrug

It's a funny thing to discuss.
Peace be with you all.

Agreed.


This is what I am getting out of this. Interesting to think about I guess.

Reminds me of the topic of destiny, though maybe it's the same thing? We can always look backwards and say "ah, but you were destined to do that/change your mind/choose this over that" but we can never look forward with certainty because that is impossible. Because the past has already happened and the choice has already been made, it's not possible to argue anything else other than "that was always going to happen" because yeah, it already happened.

I don't think it's possible to get to the point where we can somehow account for ALL DATA POINTS that makes up a person's choice (their entire lives, brains, ancestry, circumstance, etc), so by all accounts it feels to me like it's close enough to a free choice. Everyone's just trying to do their best here, man!

Completely agreed. And yeah, the concept of destiny is the same as the concept of free will.
 
The exact same thing happens with self transcendence or ego death, which Sam has also spoken about. By losing the sense of being an agent in the body trapped in the head and in the conscious thoughts of "me" as an image, you become more aware and in tune that you are, at the minimum, the whole body at work. You're more like a wave that flows instead of specific water molecules in it, if that makes sense. Instead of fixing yourself as the impressions, the contents that appear within awareness, you then flip and identify more with the aware space in which they appear in. This is profound and quite a change from the way we typically think, especially for us Westerners, who still adhere to social views of a Christian ego. This view of awareness being prior to contents appearing in it also correlates to arguments Harris and Pinker both allude to with the brain, but I know personally that Sam has spoken a better deal about that in Waking Up and on his podcast. Sam argues, and I would agree with, that happiness and peace can exist prior to external influences, conditions, and stimuli in this state of realization. Consider for just one moment how odd that seems to the way we normally look at the world and happiness as something to be acquired through time, effort, and a future. This is what gurus mean when they about "now" being pure bliss and peace, regardless of any wooly claims they make at higher concepts about the universe about Ishvara or deities; they're talking about a state of 'not-self', of ego death.

The problem however, like free will, is that accepting that state of self as fleeting and illusory seems like the most destructive thing you can ever do. There have been users on this very forum that I have conversed on the subject with, and they were so attached to such beliefs that they would try and argue suicide if their conceptions and notions of selfhood and control were bogus. "If I'm not me and what I think I am, why should I live?" and familiar retorts like that. This alludes to what I said earlier, where belief drives behavior: if you think of yourself as only the impressions in your awareness, cut off from everything else, you're a receding flame that you try to continue to fuel. No way in hell are you escaping that well, or in peace, so long as you hang onto those concepts. Your lens from the very beginning is incompatible what "what is" of reality, so it'd be better to see through it instead of trying to see the world from it.

We've had a similar discussion via PM before. You and me, we seem to be largely in tune with each other.

But, we don't agree on the specifics of the wordings and phrasings.

You tend to deemphasize the notion of self too much - as though we could dissolve our frame of mind, our essence and simply observe from a third person perspective.

Perhaps a better way to frame it for those more familiar with the western traditions (as most would be on this forum), is that the nature of self is rather different to the intuitive sense of it. That is, the self does indeed, encompass the body... but also the circumstances unique to producing the experiences and events of that self.

To put it another way, take the same genetic material, and place it in an utterly different environment. A different place, a different time. That person would be very different from who I am now - because I'm not just my genetics, I'm not just my body, I'm the sum of all the experiences and causalities that have been involved in making me specifically who I am - and that many of those factors can be altered significantly for all people, in a much more positive way.

We get at the same points... but I think it's important to phrase things in a manner that is more emotionally salient for others to swallow.
 
"Free will" is a codeword for "soul," like "intelligent design" is a codeword for "creationism." If you believe in free will then you must not believe that cognition is a process that happens for 100% natural reasons. Sorry.
 
The problem however, like free will, is that accepting that state of self as fleeting and illusory seems like the most destructive thing you can ever do. There have been users on this very forum that I have conversed on the subject with, and they were so attached to such beliefs that they would try and argue suicide if their conceptions and notions of selfhood and control were bogus. "If I'm not me and what I think I am, why should I live?" and familiar retorts like that. This alludes to what I said earlier, where belief drives behavior: if you think of yourself as only the impressions in your awareness, cut off from everything else, you're a receding flame that you try to continue to fuel. No way in hell are you escaping that well, or in peace, so long as you hang onto those concepts. Your lens from the very beginning is incompatible what "what is" of reality, so it'd be better to see through it instead of trying to see the world from it.

I know what you mean! I had a discussion about religion with a friend the other day, which I revealed to be Atheist and she couldn't grasp that idea, because it would mean her whole life would be pointless. And I said to her that losing my religion was one of the most liberating experiences I had.

We even discussed about free will a bit, but it very superficially since its something I hadn't read much.

Thank you by the way, I am loving this kind of discussion.
 
Who or what is the you of your mind that is the chooser? What process? You have vaguely defined it as "my choice", but where are your grounds to assume there's a part of your brain that allows you to be such an agent?

It's really no different than saying "I believe I have a soul because I am me". It's vague enough for people to believe, yet not solid enough to stand pressure.

Unless you can prove an entity or state of the brain that enters the "chooser" mode that can also be conceptualized to be your image of self (hence the "I choose"), there is no way anything you're saying stands up to fuck all. It infers a conscious chooser that is separate in a way from conscious and unconscious processes that build up to the decision. I don't think I need to be the one to highlight such a fallacy. :P
I am some what confused.
You are saying things like "where are your grounds", "there is no way anything you're saying stands up".
But the question the OP posited was "Do You Believe in Free Will?" and said in his post "Based on your personal feelings". So I simply stated that I personally believe in free will. I am not pretending to know for a fact free will exists, nor am I attempting to convince any one of it.
Believe in what you would like. I have no reason to believe in determination, so I do not.
But i agree that you are the one making the choice. I'm just saying that you are not in control of the choice you make.

There's less (zero) evidence for free will. Why do you believe that?

You haven't put much thought on the matter.

You have to understand the implications of no free will. Without free will we cannot account for our sense of self, as an acting agent, as anything more then a illusion.
Everything you think, your desires, your fears, likes, dislikes are just emergent properties of a causal chain of our reality, not really yours. When you understand that, you can let go of the chains that hold you on this illusion of self, and you can become a better person by reevaluating everything you and other people do using this perspective. You will stop holding people at fault for wrong things they do, and will try to just understand why did they do that, and what you can do to help them improve. And you can do the same for yourself.

If I am not in control of making the choice, then I didn't make a choice. All I did was carry out an action that was already decided.
Whether we actually have free will or not isn't terribly important to me. If there was a paper that came out tomorrow that expertly proved we did not have free will, and left no room for doubt, I would shrug my shoulders and move on with my life.

It's paradoxically freeing to stop believing in free will.
Unfortunately if free will doesn't exist then I'm already predetermined to not believe in determinism and thus changing my beliefs is not up to me, sorry :(
 
A part of me believes in Free Will to a degree, but its part of a larger part of how i'm currently interpreting psychological impulse. Essentially, I read a study not too long ago that had some scientific evidence that explained that even when we are consciously mulling over making a decision, there was a part of our brains that had already decided. I wish I could find this study since it really helped give insight to this question.

That being said, I actually feel this is more of a larger battle in the mind that goes on between free will & instinct. The other day, the concept was brought up to me about discipline versus natural motivation as to what pushes humans to do things. How we can train ourselves to do something that we want, versus just hoping that our natural motivation will perk up & carry us down a certain path.
 
We've had a similar discussion via PM before. You and me, we seem to be largely in tune with each other.

But, we don't agree on the specifics of the wordings and phrasings.

You tend to deemphasize the notion of self too much - as though we could dissolve our frame of mind, our essence and simply observe from a third person perspective.

Perhaps a better way to frame it for those more familiar with the western traditions (as most would be on this forum), is that the nature of self is rather different to the intuitive sense of it. That is, the self does indeed, encompass the body... but also the circumstances unique to producing the experiences and events of that self.

To put it another way, take the same genetic material, and place it in an utterly different environment. A different place, a different time. That person would be very different from who I am now - because I'm not just my genetics, I'm not just my body, I'm the sum of all the experiences and causalities that have been involved in making me specifically who I am - and that many of those factors can be altered significantly for all people, in a much more positive way.

We get at the same points... but I think it's important to phrase things in a manner that is more emotionally salient for others to swallow.

Perhaps the way we go about explaining it is where we differ, and I have always had the view that my articulation has been fuzzy. It is something I do wish to deal with, and the only way to deal with that is to simply get more involved with practices and understanding it from the perspective of experience, not merely data. I have long felt and argued that the data to something means little if one cannot digest it as experience. People who deny climate change, the Average Joes, may do so because their experience is one where they feel there is a significant enough of a division between the organism-environment relationship, for example. Similarly, the same applies to free will and the illusion of self, for we can sit here and say science back those points to be mere illusions, if one cannot digest it, it means fuck all. Right now I feel as if in many instances, I am trying to describe the taste and texture of honey to people alien about it.

I try to skin it from a position of nondual awareness, and as this is where I wish to go vocationally, perhaps I can be better at phrasing in time. But do Roshi's even get internet access? ;)
 
Free will is a practical illusion, it "works" and by such it becomes, phenomenologically speaking, real and true. Every human being experiences it, whether you believe in it or not.

Going by this approach, hard determinism is pure esoretism and a belief in nature-based destiny. You can justify any behavior and experience with it, basically.

It really provides no function to society besides bashing religion. Which is funny, since hard determinism is essentially conservative.
 
It really provides no function to society besides bashing religion. Which is funny, since hard determinism is essentially conservative.
Is it? To me the whole libertarian and bootstraps idea makes the most sense if we assume free will.
 
I believe in the impossibility of knowing while in human form. At the least the illusion of free will exists, which is closely tied to the very concept of subjective reality. In a sense then, everyone who responds "no" to this question is denying some of the most basic principles that define human perception. Which is fine, as long as you realize you're describing a concept beyond your cognitive grasp.
 
In a sense then, everyone who responds "no" to this question is denying some of the most basic principles that define human perception.

And in another, more accurate sense, they're not denying anything. It's not beyond cognitive grasp by any means, plenty of posters have articulated it perfectly clearly here.

For example, this post couldn't be clearer:

But the decision making process leaves no room for free will.

When you have to chose, you will try to pick the best option according to some rule, but you didn't get to pick this rule to follow. And even if you did, you cannot account for why you have chosen this rule, because you would be doing a decision making process, thus needing another rule you didn't get to chose. This will go back ad infinitum to your first thoughts, that come in to being from things you didn't get to chose (your place of birth, family, time of birth). And we can keep playing this game on your parents (not having a choice on why they chose the things they chose) and their parents, until we reach the first living cell on this planet, which also had no choice in the matter of existing or not.
 
And in another, more accurate sense, they're not denying anything. It's not beyond cognitive grasp by any means, plenty of posters have articulated it perfectly clearly here.

For example, this post couldn't be clearer:

Quantum indeterminacy refutes that post. My point is that when you believe in hard determinism you are doing so within the limit of human cognition. You can't see the physical laws of nature for yourself, therefore anything beyond that is speculation, even if it is logically valid. Determinism is a victim of it's own demise since the premises presuppose non-provable laws that only exist in a isolated vacuum of mathematical equation that represent but do not constitute reality.

In other words you can't escape the immediate perceptive belief that we have choices that begin with ourselves (and the concept of belief itself), otherwise we wouldn't exist.

Descartes comes to mind.
 
I believe in the impossibility of knowing while in human form. At the least the illusion of free will exists, which is closely tied to the very concept of subjective reality. In a sense then, everyone who responds "no" to this question is denying some of the most basic principles that define human perception. Which is fine, as long as you realize you're describing a concept beyond your cognitive grasp.

.....as opposed to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom