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

Free Will vs Determinism: Where do you stand?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not say his reaction would be his choice. I said it would be irrational.

The problem with determinism is that it is directly contradicted by introspection, and there are no genuinely good arguments in its favor. Usually it is taken to be the necessary result of a bunch of materialist assumptions which are themselves rife with serious problems. Sometimes those materialist assumptions are read into neuroscience research, in such a way as to imply that neuroscience has proven determinism. But is has done no such thing, and it is the philosophic assumption that are doing the actual work in such arguments.
Empirically determinism is not directly contradicted by introspection though, it is in fact common for those who attempt deep introspection (meditation) to break the illusion of the self and to realize that your experience of life is in fact all you are. A type of determinism is common in the philosophy of pacifists and other Buddhist esque perspectives. What you call "materialist assumptions" are in fact deep and widely held intuitions about causation. You are correct to point out that neuroscience reveals nothing new on this perspective as from the moment someone's head was cut off and we saw they stopped thinking we knew the brain and the mind were inexorable linked. There are of course competing intuitions, but the number of philosophers of science who doubt determinism numbers close to zero, and that is for good reason.

Lastly what you call irrational is in fact only so because of your own set of assumptions, namely moral assumptions about what responsibility entails. The Ancient Greeks believed that even those fated by the gods to take certain actions were still responsible for what they did. This view is not incoherent just distasteful in a world filled with ideas of western individualism.

As for whether or not we have free will I would take the compatibilist stance which says we can have both determinism and free will, just that we have to give up on the high and mighty libertarian free will of "could have done otherwise" and settle for the voluntary vs. involuntary distinction.
 
When people talk about free will as "doing what you want to do" I don't even understand what they're saying. Of course everyone believes that exists - the alternative is that everyone's every action is forced and the things they do are -not- what they want to do.

Of course that's not what people are talking about when they discuss free will.

For the sake of conversation, let's read the wiki on free will, or at least the first few paragraphs to get an idea of what people are talking about.

Free will is sometimes understood to mean origination, the power to break the causal chain of events, so that one's choice is uncaused by any previous event, external or internal
 
absolute 100% determinism.

Not really possible from a physics perspective. Hard determinism requires the states (position, momentum) of all particles in the universe be known with 100% certainty and that we have a complete unified theory of everything. Quantum physics demonstrates that the former is not possible. The universe is in-deterministic.

The universe only appears deterministic at the macro/Newtonian scale; we can predict the trajectories of celestial bodies and the like. For the philosophers, we'll never be able to predict what someone may be thinking or what they'll do next with absolute 100% certainty.

Personally I'd say the universe is probabilistic.
 
Free will. Because determinism enables horrific acts and ideals.
I understand the contrary, one is supposed to feel compassion or pity to others instead of just condemning them as if they are truly free of all their actions.

Also, i forgot if one acts differently from a group due to any inner decisiĂłn, then that can be seen as a form of freedom, i guess.even if its not true.
 
There are so many things in our universe that line up too perfectly to be considered mere chance. Not saying I fully believe in determinism, but I doubt humanity truly has "free" will.

I would imagine it's not chance, but circumstance. You could even conceptually call it an "innate intelligence" of sorts, where the processes of nature happen of themselves and unfold the way they have without any outside boss. Of course that concept is very basic and risks being hijacked to infer vitalism or intelligent design, but I hope you get what I mean. It's a loose idea, save for going analytical and actually describing the goings on in terms of picked apart processes. I figure simplicity in this case gets the point across better. It's not by fluke or by outright design, but it just is, to put it as plainly as that.
 
I would imagine it's not chance, but circumstance. You could even conceptually call it an "innate intelligence" of sorts, where the processes of nature happen of themselves and unfold the way they have without any outside boss. Of course that concept is very basic and risks being hijacked to infer vitalism or intelligent design, but I hope you get what I mean. It's a loose idea, save for going analytical and actually describing the goings on in terms of picked apart processes. I figure simplicity in this case gets the point across better. It's not by fluke or by outright design, but it just is, to put it as plainly as that.
This could definitely describe what i'm trying to explain, thank you.
 
I'm a compatibilist I guess.

I think a latent dualism often figures in intuitions about such topics. Determinism is often viewed from an external perspective where causes are happening to things and freedom is conveyed as in conflict with the totality of causes leading up to a choice. I think the way some determinists frame it assumes freedom requires some kind of division apart from nature when we, including our brains are a part of nature with physical effects on other things, We are only free to be human with all of its constraints of our nervous system, our environment, and causal history but I do think it's coherent to say that we have some degree of causal power. I don't have the freedom to transform into a bird and fly away which is why the freedom in the libertarian conception of free will is incoherent if you accept basic physical laws - without structure there would be nothing, but I also don't agree with some hard determinists that assume we are passive zombies.

One problem for the compatibilist view is that it's accused of being easy on intuitions in folk psychology about why we do things but I think that applies to any reasoning from a limited agent in a vast and complex universe. So while I am a compatibilist I believe we are much more limited than we may like to think.
 
Instead of insulting me..

If anything, research suggests that the opposite is true. Our brains make decisions before we become aware of them.

Additionally, I'm not the one claiming to be smart. I'm the one going along with expert consensus while you are the one playing armchair intellectual thinking you know better than actual researchers studying this because you have a gut feeling.

If you don't like being patronised, don't you your self go patronising others.

Fine. Let us learn something about my ignorance. Pick your best study. Anyone you like.
 
The creation of Earth could be an example. Out of all the planets that could've formed and housed life, this was the one that did all of that. Right position from the sun, right chemical composition, that's way too perfect to be mere coincidence.
We can observe billions of planets that aren't in the nice zone to carry life as we know it.

Shuffle a deck of cards. Now lay out those cards in a straight line face up. The order of those cards is 52!. This is an astronomically large number. Do you know how tiny the odds are to get any particular ordering? And yet, you got one ordering and you will always get some ordering. The fact that there exists a planet that can carry life is just one of the possible planet orderings. And life is required to exist to observe this fact.
 
I believe in a free will that is encroached upon by factors outside our control. Nation of birth, family's financial well-being, genetic factors, access to healthy food, educational resources, etc.

Damn, I guess I don't really believe much in free will, other than the concept. Too much out of our control. :(
 
A comic which mostly jives with my opinion.

Also, I think people in this thread are far to quick to doubt their own experience of life. When I decide what to have for lunch, even if it was determined from the big bang it certainly feels like I'm deciding between a burger or chicken. What should that be called other than free will?

The comic works only as a response to the argument that we don't have free will because we don't have souls. But I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that. Whether we have a soul or not is completely irrelevant to whether we have free will or not.

It is indeed nonsensical to argue that the lack of a soul means a lack of free will (or conversely, that having a soul would mean we had free will). But that's not an argument for free will.
 
This could definitely describe what i'm trying to explain, thank you.

Most people tend to think of fluke or destiny on the cosmic perspective. The middle way appears to be it just is, which seems to be the most reasonable view to have. It's also the most uncommon view people tend to have, strangely enough.

Flukes and destiny infer an evocation from the mind. It just being is innate; it makes zero evocation on reality.
 
I stand on "doesn't matter."

Determinism is the most likely truth, but the complexity of determinism is beyond human comprehension and free will is our subjective lived experience.
 
Is there anything about quantum mechanics that says it cannot be deterministic? Is the argument "Quantum mechanics is deterministic, but we lack the ability to properly observe all factors that generate its results" an argument that is still possible?
 
I'm a compatibilist I guess.

I think a latent dualism often figures in intuitions about such topics. Determinism is often viewed from an external perspective where causes are happening to things and freedom is conveyed as in conflict with the totality of causes leading up to a choice. I think the way some determinists frame it assumes freedom requires some kind of division apart from nature when we, including our brains are a part of nature with physical effects on other things, We are only free to be human with all of its constraints of our nervous system, our environment, and causal history but I do think it's coherent to say that we have some degree of causal power. I don't have the freedom to transform into a bird and fly away which is why the freedom in the libertarian conception of free will is incoherent if you accept basic physical laws - without structure there would be nothing, but I also don't agree with some hard determinists that assume we are passive zombies.

One problem for the compatibilist view is that it's accused of being easy on intuitions in folk psychology about why we do things but I think that applies to any reasoning from a limited agent in a vast and complex universe. So while I am a compatibilist I believe we are much more limited than we may like to think.
Can you describe this casual power? What do we have power over that would indicate some freedom outside deterministic/probabilistic natural law?

If free will to people means the ability to do think through problems and make decisions, i don't think any determinist would disagree.

But that frames the entire stance of libertarian or compatalists as a bit of a straw man. The determinist argument is that there is no way humans can make decisions divorced from the natural. The thoughts we have are determined by our brain chemistry, by our genetics, by what came before.
 
The very existence of the imagination seems to suggest that there are multiple possible outcomes latent in the nature of reality, itself, which gives lie to the determinist notion that because the universe is unfolding toward a single end, that single end is the only one that can be unfolded toward.

Compatibilism is a silly ideology because the "you" that is said to be the agent of choice in it is incoherent. If the universe is merely a collection of various chemical processes unfolding according to mathematically-governed physical laws, then the self truly is non-existent, and any sense that "you" are driving your own actions is pure delusion and folly, and whatever it is we call the self is really a form of imprisonment in which the bars are simultaneously embraced and denied.
 
The very existence of the imagination seems to suggest that there are multiple possible outcomes latent in the nature of reality, itself, which gives lie to the determinist notion that because the universe is unfolding toward a single end, that single end is the only one that can be unfolded toward.
Not really, if all your imaginings are also determined.
 
If you don't like being patronised, don't you your self go patronising others.

Fine. Let us learn something about my ignorance. Pick your best study. Anyone you like.

He's probably referring to the Libet experiments and other studies that have examined that line. There has been a lot of discussion about how the conclusions are probably conceptually flawed, but I think it's a very interesting open topic for discussion. It's basically a modern discussion of the homunculus problem.
 
The very existence of the imagination seems to suggest that there are multiple possible outcomes latent in the nature of reality, itself, which gives lie to the determinist notion that because the universe is unfolding toward a single end, that single end is the only one that can be unfolded toward.

Compatibilism is a silly ideology because the "you" that is said to be the agent of choice in it is incoherent. If the universe is merely a collection of various chemical processes unfolding according to mathematically-governed physical laws, then the self truly is non-existent, and any sense that "you" are driving your own actions is pure delusion and folly, and whatever it is we call the self is really a form of imprisonment in which the bars are simultaneously embraced and denied.

Very profound points. I wonder if the problem of self is really the ground zero of all human problems.
 
When people talk about free will as "doing what you want to do" I don't even understand what they're saying. Of course everyone believes that exists - the alternative is that everyone's every action is forced and the things they do are -not- what they want to do.

Of course that's not what people are talking about when they discuss free will.

For the sake of conversation, let's read the wiki on free will, or at least the first few paragraphs to get an idea of what people are talking about.

First of all, it's not obvious that this is what everyone means by free will. It's just that it isn't what you consider to be the relevant question, which ties back to my previous comment about how this is an argument about the meaning of words.

Secondly, perhaps if by free will we mean being causing-but-not-caused, then maybe we are simply asking for something incoherent. Even the most stern believer in a radical free will would want to say that we act because of reasons. Our personality, motivation, character and circumstance all cause us to act the way we do. If they didn't, then all of our actions would simply be random - our behaviour would be comprised only of brute actions not linked by some sort of rationale or plan. If this is free will, then isn't it safe to say that no is asking for it?

So what compatibilists try to say is that the relevant type of free will is doing what you want to do, not the aforementioned confused conception, and as such free will is not incompatible with determinism.
 
Free will.

Determinism is just an illusion that manifests after the phenomenon, the result. But the free will is what causes the phenomenon, or not.
 
I stand on "doesn't matter."

Determinism is the most likely truth, but the complexity of determinism is beyond human comprehension and free will is our subjective lived experience.
The value on this position comes up when discussing things like... Punishment.

In my experience, people who believe in free will more often see punishment as the just action. People who don't think that rehabilitation is the right course, and prevention.

When you understand and appreciate that people are composed, we look at how each piece of their composition leads them to who they are, and how we can improve upon this composition by improving each piece. Their health, education, upbringing, etc. When you think that "no matter what, this person could have made another choice", you put ideology before any reasonable solution.
 
The only way there is an meaningful difference or functional difference between the two is if it's observable and since we can't time travel or view things from an omniscient perspective there is no observable difference.

There is also no functional difference between if you were meant to do something and you chose to do something, because either way it happened, you made it happen and you have no ability to change that it happened.

So what if we discover there is no free will, we still don't know what the future holds and all of our actions are still our actions and are equally accountable for them.

So what if there is free will? We still hold the same accountability for the actions we take.

Basically it doesnt matter.
 
Free will.

Determinism is just an illusion that manifests after the phenomenon, the result. But the free will is what causes the phenomenon, or not.

Couldn't the exact opposite be equally argued? One feels they decide to decide of themselves after the brain has already decided.
 
How is cause and effect an illusion?

Not that I agree with the post you quoted, but cause and effect is a concept that is notoriously difficult to define and pin down exactly. Some very prominent philosophers (e.g. Bertrand Russel) believe it's nothing but a relic of primitive protoscience and has no use to the modern man and nothing to do with the nature of reality.
 
I feel that free will is an illusion but the true beauty of reality is that the definitive answer will always be outside of our grasp. Like an endless search for meaning that gives mankind something to pursue.
 
Free will.

Determinism is just an illusion that manifests after the phenomenon, the result. But the free will is what causes the phenomenon, or not.

You're going to have to expound on this. Are you claiming that cause is an illusion and effect is the phenomenon?
 
If causality is an essential element of how the universe works, how are we to prove that our conscious sense of free will is genuine? We will likely never have the chance to prove that we could have decided otherwise in a past event. The sequence of events leading to a moment in time cannot be reset to play out an alternative future. However, what if there was a way to simulate an environment where a precise instant can be replicated and repeated ad infinitum? Could we show that when presented with the exact conditions of an instance with multiple choices for a second time, we can choose differently? Luckily, we live in a world where such an experiment is possible through computer simulation, such as video games. Similar to our physical bodies, electronic simulations are dependent on the rules of causality to function. However, like our consciousness, they produce contextual realities that transcends their medium and provides evidence for human free will.

Computers, and by relation video games, rely on the laws of nature to operate. Let's take Mario example: electricity powers game console, the program code is loaded to memory, game processing begins, and video and sound are output to a display. Similarly, the player’s interactions involve basic physical motor functions and use of three senses; sight, hearing, and touch. The physical interactions of playing a video game are purely mechanical and provide no insight as to the purpose of the process. However, during the act of play, a contextual reality is formed between the player and the current instance of the game world. Though the player and game console follow a line of causality continuing through space and time at all moments, the contextual reality of the game world can start over to an exact replica of a previous momement. While playing Super Mario Brothers, one can reset the instance of the game world to stage 1-1 with the same starting conditions. Doing so provides the contextual reality and perspective, however simple it may be, to exercise our freedom of will with repeatable scenarios.

At this point, you may be wondering how this proves anything at all. If we are bound by causality at all times, then playing video games is included the actions that could be determined by unseen elemental forces acting upon sub-atomic particles, right? Possibly, but let us suppose for a moment that human free will is genuine. If a free choice is a part of the causal chain, in no way does its appearance or involvement in the sequence negate a choice’s authenticity. Our free will, then, may not governed by causality, but rather is a force acting within the sequence; a cause or effect. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant states this concept best in his Critique of Pure Reason, “Now of course the action must be possible under natural conditions if the ought [possible action] is directed to it; but these natural conditions do not concern the determination of the power of choice itself, but only its effects and result in appearance.”

Once a video game is running, it has its own unique line of causality separate from our own in everything but that it relies on physical interactions in our world for sustainment. In their unique way to simulate reality and repeatable scenarios, video games provide us some small proof that our sense of free will is genuine.
 
If you are to think of a duplicate universe that starts the same as ours, what reason would there be to think that any difference would occur? What reason is there to assume that we will make different choices?

I can't think of one.

Even if you knew the states of all particles in our universe at this moment, had the proper equations and had a computer powerful enough to run a simulation, you'd unlikely get an outcome matching our current universe. Quantum effects are thought to have had a much greater influence during the early universe and in turn the universe at it exists now.
 
If electron movement is indeterministic by quantum physics, and computers rely 100% on electrons, how are computers 100% deterministic and yet the human brain that relies far less on the flow of electrons somehow thought to be indeterministic by quantum physics?
 
Not really, if all your imaginings are also determined.

Whether the imaginings are determined or not, they illuminate outcomes other than the outcomes we actually see. Indeed, this is the reason they were an evolutionary boon to the species. Philosophically, at least, they suggest the possibility that a view of reality as purely determined is missing some essential component that the evolution of consciousness introduces to circumstances.

Very profound points. I wonder if the problem of self is really the ground zero of all human problems.

Well, I'm not on your anti-existence of self train, so no, I don't think so, personally. I'm just saying, those are inescapable conclusions if determinism is true, which I'm not at all convinced of because it requires a sophisticated understanding of reality we are still far, far away from achieving.
 
Is there anything about quantum mechanics that says it cannot be deterministic? Is the argument "Quantum mechanics is deterministic, but we lack the ability to properly observe all factors that generate its results" an argument that is still possible?

It's possible, and it will always be possible. There is no way to debunk "but what if it's all deterministic and we just haven't discovered the workings behind it yet?". Knowing whether something is truly random is impossible.

The question is: why would you assume it's deterministic and we just haven't discovered how it works yet simply because it's possible?

If electron movement is indeterministic by quantum physics, and computers rely 100% on electrons, how are computers 100% deterministic and yet the human brain that relies far less on the flow of electrons somehow thought to be indeterministic by quantum physics?

Computers aren't 100% deterministic. At least yours isn't cause you probably use non-ECC memory. Background radiation can flip bits in memory (it still can in ECC memory but we have error correcting codes to deal with that, although they can't handle multiple bits being flipped).
 
First of all, it's not obvious that this is what everyone means by free will. It's just that it isn't what you consider to be the relevant question, which ties back to my previous comment about how this is an argument about the meaning of words.

Secondly, perhaps if by free will we mean being causing-but-not-caused, then maybe we are simply asking for something incoherent. Even the most stern believer in a radical free will would want to say that we act because of reasons. Our personality, motivation, character and circumstance all cause us to act the way we do. If they didn't, then all of our actions would simply be random - our behaviour would be comprised only of brute actions not linked by some sort of rationale or plan. If this is free will, then isn't it safe to say that no is asking for it?

So what compatibilists try to say is that the relevant type of free will is doing what you want to do, not the aforementioned confused conception, and as such free will is not incompatible with determinism.

Can you explain to me more what this means, i actually have no idea.
 
Well, I'm not on your anti-existence of self train, so no, I don't think so, personally. I'm just saying, those are inescapable conclusions if determinism is true, which I'm not at all convinced of because it requires a sophisticated understanding of reality we are still far, far away from achieving.

I am only anti-self in the sense that if people fail to realize it's only a concept, they'll be making problems for themselves. If they play a sense of self in the way an actor plays a role in a play - relatively but knowing on an absolute level it's a fiction - then it's okay. I can play the social role of Foffy and all of its evocations and ascriptions knowing that that's all they are, and there's something innate prior to those concepts to what I as an organism are. Drag queens and their relation to culture is actually a perfect example of this social roleplay that the self idea ultimately amounts to, at best. It's all a put on.

Most people have a sense of self that seems absolute and non-fiction, and that's a grave error. That's where one needs to be anti-self: call the fraud for a fraud. It doesn't mean one loses their name and labels, but know they are relative, not absolute. What is a fact that awareness exists prior to the arrival of thoughts and emotions, thus the arrival of a self. Apparently this level of awareness exists beyond the five senses, but I have not had such an experience. The fact fucking Sam Harris argues this really fascinates me, for he's very legit on his understanding the fictional self we make of ourselves.
 
Can you describe this casual power? What do we have power over that would indicate some freedom outside deterministic/probabilistic natural law?

If free will to people means the ability to do think through problems and make decisions, i don't think any determinist would disagree.

But that frames the entire stance of libertarian or compatalists as a bit of a straw man. The determinist argument is that there is no way humans can make decisions divorced from the natural. The thoughts we have are determined by our brain chemistry, by our genetics, by what came before.

I don't think your view is necessarily in conflict with what a compatibilist would think, but it's in contrast to a hard determinist who thinks human behavior and actions are wholly determined by "external" factors, either because it unwittingly assumes some kind of dualism for humans to have choice or thinks other causes swamp all human decision making. My version of compatibilism is saying that we have some degree of self determination in a way that isn't simply passive participation in the other causes of the universe, that human beings are a type of thing that can reflect and effect other things through a system that includes conscious and unconscious processes that interact internally and externally such that freedom and agency exist.

As others have said the argument turns on disagreements in terminology. "Freedom" is an umbrella word that there will be a lot of different ideas about under the same label, but I do think facts can be brought to bear on that understanding.
 
Being aware of the idea of free will may be just another piece of the rube-goldberg machine of existence. Because you believe you have free-will, something will happened because of it, but that was determined
 
If electron movement is indeterministic by quantum physics, and computers rely 100% on electrons, how are computers 100% deterministic and yet the human brain that relies far less on the flow of electrons somehow thought to be indeterministic by quantum physics?
Because the indeterministic quantum effects aren't present in most computer systems, or rather, not relevant. Computers operate with the expectation of determinism, and 'ignore' these quantum effects.
 
Because the indeterministic quantum effects aren't present in most computer systems, or rather, not relevant. Computers operate with the expectation of determinism, and 'ignore' these quantum effects.
How do they ignore it? Do transistors, semiconductors and wires conduct and control the flow of electrons so well that quantum randomness has no place to throw its dice? What about the electrical flow of neurons or the chemical exchanges in the brain? Is it observable that quantum mechanics is making random variances in the brain that do not exist in a computer?
 
It's possible, and it will always be possible. There is no way to debunk "but what if it's all deterministic and we just haven't discovered the workings behind it yet?". Knowing whether something is truly random is impossible.

The question is: why would you assume it's deterministic and we just haven't discovered how it works yet simply because it's possible?



Computers aren't 100% deterministic. At least yours isn't cause you probably use non-ECC memory. Background radiation can flip bits in memory (it still can in ECC memory but we have error correcting codes to deal with that, although they can't handle multiple bits being flipped).
Radiation flipping bits is still deterministic. The radiation is just a new input.
 
I was in the Free Will camp and then I read this
QlftyrF.jpg


RIP Free will
 
How do they ignore it? Do transistors, semiconductors and wires conduct and control the flow of electrons so well that quantum random randomness has no place to throw its dice? What about the electrical flow of neurons or the chemical exchanges in the brain? Is it observable that quantum mechanics is making random variances in the brain that do not exist in a computer?
As far as i understand, yes. Quantum tunneling is an issue where particles pass through barriers they should classically not be able to, but this isn't really an issue for transistors, or more specifically, once it becomes an insurmountable issue for transistors that get even smaller, those transistors will have to account for that randomness, or just not work anymore. I wish i knew more than that.
 
As far as i understand, yes. Quantum tunneling is an issue where particles pass through barriers they should classically not be able to, but this isn't really an issue for transistors, or more specifically, once it becomes an instrumelountable issue for transistors that get even smaller, those transistors will have to account for that randomness, or just not work anymore. I wish i knew more than that.
Are we certain that the same isn't true for the human brain?
 
How is cause and effect an illusion?

I didn't say that or maybe I expressed myself bad, or I have a different idea of what is Free Will and Determinism and English isn't my first language. lol I'm trying to say that there are virtually infinite possibilities before an act and that isn't determined. When you have the result or phenomenon, you have the "formula" for that, so you can determine it. But before the result or the start of the act, is is indeterminable, because you can even choose to not do the act, postpone the decision for eternity so it can never be determinable, or be influenced by exterior facts.

Couldn't the exact opposite be equally argued? One feels they decide to decide of themselves after the brain has already decided.

Yeah, probably if it's, in the end, a problem of terminology.

You're going to have to expound on this. Are you claiming that cause is an illusion and effect is the phenomenon?

I believe free will controls the cause, the effect is the result or phenomenon (the manifestation as it appears to our senses). But I'm not a specialist and English isn't my first language, I might be speaking nonsense.
 
When people talk about free will as "doing what you want to do" I don't even understand what they're saying. Of course everyone believes that exists - the alternative is that everyone's every action is forced and the things they do are -not- what they want to do.

Of course that's not what people are talking about when they discuss free will.

For the sake of conversation, let's read the wiki on free will, or at least the first few paragraphs to get an idea of what people are talking about.

There are several flaws in this post, one you used Wikipedia as your source, two that's statement in itself doesn't refute any beliefs or understanding of free will (it literally says sometimes, and is implying that it is not how the term free will is normally used). Third you basing this entire argument on one interpretation of free will, when their are of course many.
 
How does philosophy and other areas see dreams in this discussion?

In dreams we make choices as well, but they have no bearing in the real world, so they would be "pure free will" in a sense, of course you could argue that the whole dream itself was determined previously because of past experiences, but being detached from the real world means anything can happen in them and they will not affect the real world.

Then again some people act in the real world after something that happened in a dream, for sure, but most don't. Dreams are a weird thing when you start to really analyzing them from that perspective.

In that same line there is imagination, I can imagine a dragon in the room I am right now, is it free will the fact I imagined it? it did nothing in the real world and had no consequences, unless we have already seen that the physical object of the brain changed physically when I imagined the dragon. I don't how advanced neuroscience is in that regard though.
 
There are several flaws in this post, one you used Wikipedia as your source, two that's statement in itself doesn't refute any beliefs or understanding of free will (it literally says sometimes, and is implying that it is not how the term free will is normally used). Third you basing this entire argument on one interpretation of free will, when their are of course many.
?

1. What's wrong with using wikipedia for the source to find a common definition of free will?

2. The statement i quoted is describing a specific interpretation of free will, the one I think about in discussions.

3. Of course I'm arguing against the version of free will that i understand to make sense.

Do you:

1. Have a different source/definition of free will you want to share or talk about?

2. Have any actual arguments against my interpreation of free will and my argument against the other interpretation used? Can you defend the "free will is doing what you want to do" position? My argument against it is basically, this is a useless definition, and one that's been used in this thread multiple times
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom