Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:14:43 +0100

If confronted with the same situation without having knowledge of the outcome you would make the same decision each time. If you travelled back in time to witness yourself make a choice free will would not be in question. You would simply be witnessing the past, the event had already happened. Many events could in fact be predicted, every choice we make is a result of our environment and heredity. Free will is what allows us to make the decision which of these factors will influence us more, and cause us to choose the outcome that most fits our opinion based on these influences.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:43:15 +0100

Your basically watching a movie but able to make subtle changes and maybe OVERTIME large changes.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:40:54 +0100

First of all time traveling is only possible when the time machine was created. The only possible way is to meet with another civilization that had already created it and only then being able to travel through time. My opinion on the free will.. you free will is just an illusion your not special humans aren't special you do what you can do with few choices really. what you think all that "free will" is its just a compound of instinct and logical decisions that you dont even really make. Your like the CEO in the company you can control some of what goes on and even sometimes the most important. but mostly it controls you. Your free will isnt as good as you think it is.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:18:11 +0100

Well as you said the end game is at least as of right now is imposible for us to determine. Talking about purpouse only makes sence if you put a diety into the argument, because without a conciosness there can be no purpouse, things just are. As far as sujesting a higher power, i would not say so, if we put a "god" "prime mover" what ever you wish to call this entity, we still end up with questions of the cause for its existance. Also the only way that this said diety could influence the universe is if it is not itself subject to cause and effect. We can not even conceive such a conciosness, because we lack perceptional experience to give us an idea of it (just like we cant conceive the lack of space).

So to recap, i would say that a higher power is not nessisary, because it does not have to be a planed or designed existance, but simply the way it is. But if their is a diety its conciosnees is not subject to cause and efect and hence is completly beyond us to even conceive. So all traditional (western) religions, with their distinct human concepts of sin, morality, and very distinct rules for the afterlife, would be similarly inconceivable to a concience outside physical laws, or at the very least they would be beyond trivial.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:50:13 +0100

If everything is a reaction to something occurring before it, then shouldn%u2019t it stand to reason that it is theoretically possible, while not practical or feasible, to calculate the direction our universe would take (provided we had some mega ultra super deluxe calculator of some sort). If that is the case, and everything is already predetermined, then I guess my only question would be to ask the purpose. Why? To what end does this perpetual propagation of cause and effect have%u2026I understand we lack the initial conditions to determine a prime cause, and that may prevent us from knowing the following, but what is the end game here? And does the removal of free will suggest a higher power? Simply because an initial spark seems imperative to set off this universe of ours. For instance, the belief in God shared by many is in actuality, according to our discussion, an effect, but what purpose does said effect have? To perpetuate cultural evolution? And to what purpose does that have? Speaking of evolution, why bother with all the failed or transitional versions? Why is that necessary in a determined universe, which seems bent on taking the long road. Why is anything necessary?

I want omniscience!!! What cause grants that effect, cus I%u2019m find this all to be very frustrating

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:05:39 +0100

Randall
The original cause i would say is imposible to determine. Im sure there was a big bang of some sort, but when we come to understand it better im certain we will come to find other multiple causes behind it.

What determines our actions? Well physics. Aparently the laws of physics as we know them were set at the big bang, but i think the basic pricipal of cause and effect ws around always. So the interaction of particles determines it. Imagine a pool table as you break the racked balls, the balls hit each other and go all over the place in what almost seems like a random patern. But if we were to analize the angle the cue ball hit at, the strenth it hit with, the exact positioning of other balls we could predict were all the balls would end up. Well now imagine trrillions of pool balls being hit and pulled away and from oneanother, with various sourses of energy acting upon them. The paterns here are incredibly complex, maby infinitley comlex if we consider infinite divisibility.

Djebe
I think i see the reason you distinguished between the two meanings of free will. You mentioned chaous theory, dosent it state that everything moves in a pattern, and is not completly random. I may bevague on the theory, but i think a chaous theorist would probobly say there is no free will for the reasons i described above.

Now could you break down to me why you think different effect can come from same causes? Ithink thats what i got from your previous comment.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:05:57 +0100

randall menser! I NEVER bicker! I only engage in relevant, impartial debate ...

OK. Perhaps I did. But actually I thought I was right dead on the subject of your idea. Wasn't your time travel story just an intro to the central question:

"Does the earlier me have free will? Or is the universe, ultimately, deterministic?"

My point is exactly this, that the alternative (deterministic universe vs. free will) is false. Imagine, e.g., that decisions are ultimately influenced by processes in the brain belonging to the realm of chaos theory, i.e. they are not determistic. This wouldn't make any difference to the phenomenon of free will in the colloquial sense.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:58:33 +0100

Djebe and skeptic...thank you for commenting. I find your dialogue to be very interesting. However, I fail to see the relevance in bickering over the meaning of the term free will. Cant we just presume its colloquial meaning and move on? afterall, it was also Wittgenstein who said, "the sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language" and while that may be an interesting subject, isnt this a matter of science? Most philosophers I know of do not have the most up to date knowledge regarding scientific theory and therefore their positions cannot be factored in when dealing with said theories.

as far as the matter at hand is concerned, any ideas to the original cause...and furthermore, any thoughts to have effects are determined, that is to say, how is the left hand chosen from the right? how are the laws that govern our universe chosen from these trillions of chain reactions?

nameless...while humorous...way of point, buddy. perhaps you should train your brain as well.

ponderer...if I can come back to regard my earlier actions, whos to say my future self isnt watching me right now...or his future self..or his...forever and ever? so, which one of us has the ultimate free will...which one of us made the choices we made?

chancery...the majority of religions are filled to the brim with paradox.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:36:45 +0100

Djebe
You are corect. That is exactly why the everyday definition of free will can still be used in everyday situation. We can call this philosophical dilema whatever we wish, the term itself is not important. So we can use free will in diferent context, or we can come up with a diferent trm to seperate the two, it really is irelevant to the question itself.

If you think that a cause can have multiple effects, and that we are in fact slaves to the dice game i described. Then you simplly have a different idea of the lack of free will.

Namless
NOw im not disagreing with you that exercice is very benificial. As a matter of fact i just got back from the gym, i forced myself to go even though i was rather tired. But that does not mean i have free will in the sence which we are discussing here. Im sayin even something like chosing to raise your right or left hand is not really a choice, anymore then its a choice to go to the gym. They are al chemical and neurological paterns subject to cause and effect.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:53:51 +0100

Free-Will:

Tomorrow morning I have a DECISION - am I going to do my daily training or am I going to sloth all day long?

Every morning with my free-will I make the harder decision, and the more I make that decision the easier it gets to make all decisions - Will power increases.

But for those potato chip eating, beer drinking gluttons I would say they have almost zero will - the will of others control their life entirely...

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:47:45 +0100

Skeptic 44

I am sure there are many "philosophical" definitions of free will different from the "laymans", that means a philospher has thought up his own version. Then he ponderously shakes his head when he runs into trouble with it and explains this to be a deep metaphysical problem. Wittgenstein calls these word games and warns us not to be taken in by them.

To quote you: "It simply makes us slaves to a dice game, we still have no control over the particles in the brain that make us act."

Well, what ARE we except these particles in our brain (and the rest of our body, don't forget the hormones)?

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:51:34 +0100

Djebe

Yes there are many paterns that we can not predict. This does not make them random, it simplly means that we do not know the causes behind the efects. Probability is simply a number of unkown causes. SO the fact that brain paterns seem at times random, is because we can not posibly calculate all the causes and effects on the atomic and subatomic levels.

Now there is an argument that a certain cause has multiple effects. I personally dont see it, because if you achive different effects from the same cause there are siply variables on a smaller scale that you can not perceive or factor in. But even if it is true that a certain cause has mutiple efects that does not give us free will as such. It simply makes us slaves to a dice game, we still have no control over the particles in the brain that make us act.

When it comes to the laymans definition of free will, it has nothing to do directly with the metapysical or philosophical definition. It refers to human interaction so it can stay the way it is. We use terms all the time in daly life that are defined completly diferently in scientific fields.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:11:19 +0100

What sort of gets out of focus here is what "free will" actually means in everyday language. It means doing a thing without somebody forcing you at gunpoint to do so, or being under a similar coercion. If you throw the term "free will" out of the window out of philosophical or biological reasons you would have to coin a new word to cover the original meaning (and then, probably, the whole discussion would start anew)

Compare it to quantum theory. On a subatomic level, many processes happen randomly. But at higher level, e.g. molecular, processes are so regular it makes sense to call them determined. In the same vein, the complex interactions of neurons in the brain often produce so astounding and unpredictable results in our actions that it makes sense to speak of a free will.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:59:45 +0100

I stumbled upon this topic in very much the same manner. I found myself thinking, if was to randomly raise a hand either right or left. And if i could replay that moment 1000 times and as you said wath it without interfering the same action would take place. Because throught trillions and trillions of causese and effects the matter in my brain aranged itself in such a way at that paticular moment that i chose to raise my left hand.

Now my friend this is not some sci fi BS that no one takes seriously. You find that most neuro scietists do not belive in free will, because they understand the cause and effect processeses in the brain, and also understand that its the reactions in the brain that control us not the other way around.

Now form here you can go in a number of directions. You can imagine that we do in fact have a "soul" or "mind" what ever it may be. And its the soul that spurs the biological reactions in the brain. This of course would have to mean that this mind or greater conciosness in not subject to cause itself. And if that is the case then you are able to infact chose which hand you raise, but thers of course no science that can back this up.

You can not belive and free will but belive in a diety. BUt this means that everything that happens is the direct will of the said diety, and every kid that gets shot in africa is his direct will not the work of mans folly.

You can look at it as we are just matter conected to the rest of the universe, subject to the same laws as everything else, we are in fact the universe. You should check out the idea "we are the universe considering itself" its not mine but i think you would find it interesting.

The irony of what i said of course is that i gave you a number of ways of looking at things, or choices.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:39:10 +0100

Of course if you went back in time and observed yourself, your "previous" self would repeat what he had done, just as a video of yourself would not, upon replaying, vary from what you did at the time the video was made. Just because what you have already done cannot be changed, that doesn't mean you had no free will at the time you did it.

Comment on: the dilema of free will

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:07:03 +0100

The idea of predestiny is not supported by majority of theological studies, except for some groups of Calvinism. Even taking theology aside, the idea of a pre-set choice across different times and random events violates the concept of free choice.