Are all humans puppets on a string? Physicists will say that every cause has an effect, biologist that our DNA contains so much information about whom we are and psychologists that our childhood and environment determine to some extent our nature. How can anything we do be our own doing? For example a child grows up with parents who do drugs; the child grows up in a poor community. According to statistics this child himself will be a criminal. Is he to blame? I would say no because childhood has determined already his nature. Again if every cause has an effect then surely there is nothing we can do to stop what can only ensure from previous actions. We can’t control what has already happened. Then with have DNA, if DNA says so much about whom we are i.e. artistic, a bank robber etc… Can we take any blame for what we achieve or the bad deeds that we do? It seems to me at least for the major part that everything about our nature has been determined for us; a lot depends on our parents and community not directly on us. Take terrorists in the Middle East. Can the West blame them for who they are, have we created them? I would say that blaming Islam or other such things is only convenient and we should look at ourselves and change us before accusing others. By changing ourselves and our community we can then cause effects to take place for the positive. To some extent we can therefore change but the change but take place on the inside then that will effect to all. As for DNA this is unchangeable. As far as I can see nobody can be proud for being intelligent or feel down if not. We’re all just products of a shaken dice.
IMO, if we assume that the Universe is completely causal, then there’s clearly no free will. This is the position I take, but whether or not I’d bet my life on it is another matter.
A more important point (perhaps) is that there’s responsibility either way; fatalism is no defence to criminality!
Yes.
What should be said is; according to statistics a majority of these children may be criminals. Being brought up in various circumstances does not always decide ones fate. Everyone has a choice, their own will, but everyone has their influences as well - and that is a key factor in ones development.
Gonna argue against free will here. There’s simply no room for it. I suppose you could argue that it’s an emergent property, but I doubt it.
That said, we’re working on some pretty sweet gene therapy technologies. Don’t worry, we’ll be able to tweak DNA soon enough.
Why we never took our success with livestock breeding and applied it to humans, I’ll never understand, but that’s another topic. I suppose it would get abused and become a terrible racist institution pretty quickly, but, ahhh, were it not for that the raw potential is so great.
What makes you say that?
Thats true. I meant that certain people in certain circumstances are more likley to be criminals. What about DNA we can’t choose that. If its in someones nature to steal, can he be blamed. I will look up my source when I get home. He wrote a book where he compared two twins who were sperated at birth. They ended up having nearly identical lifes. Even though they never saw each other. Surley this is proof that DNA dictates our lifes. Therefore we might have some free will but alot of what we do is in our nature. I think his name was Dr something Singh. I’ll post it when I get home.
I do not believe DNA dictates ones will. It is in everyones nature to steal, and it is in everyones nature to give, but it is their will which ultimatly decides whether they will do so or not.
I’ve heard of similar stories of twins to which you commented on and I honestly put such things down to similar influences and reactions. Some twins end up with similar lives, seperated or no, that is true - but you must never forget that many twins do not. If DNA is really the answer, why do only some end up with similar lives?
I do not believe humans are not robots that follow programming [DNA] like you have suggested, I believe we make our own choices; we have our free will.
Where does the free will come from then? I rather like the idea of free will, but there is simply no place for it.
When we are conceived, our genes and placental environment dictate our development.
After we are born, our brain pattern is more-or-less set by the time we are 2. Our character is set before we are 2.
So, now you’ve got a fully-developed hardware set.
Genes create the proteins that modulate our brain activity.
In response to our environment, our transcription changes, so we’ve got new proteins, but ultimately, it’s all about the genes.
why do you think some people argue “in favor of” determinism?
why do you think we should be convinced that free will does not exist?
We aren’t physical, we’ve had spiritual desires to rise above the animals. To rise above the oppression. To gain a utopia that animinals seem to have. Animals merely react to their bodies and we see how complex they really are,… Apes are the most complex. Yet I can sum it up like this. Adrenalin, testosteron, and familiar trusts. As soon as you teach an ape not to trust you, it will teach through visual and sound cues, it’s young the same.
Humans have an ability beyond animals. An abstract cause that preceeds all known brain causes.
I highly suggest that rather than driving yourself mad over this antinomy, you think seriously about: “we freely choose our fate.”
(ie the two are quite compatable)
I don’t think that others should be ‘convinced’ that there is no free will, I just don’t logically see how it fits in. If you accept a spiritual side of the world, or a mind/body duality, then free will is easily explained. However, if you reject a non-physical reality, as well as the mind/body duality, then it logically follows that free-will cannot exist. There is simply no hardware for it, it doesn’t fit in.
I’d like to believe in free will, but, honestly, I don’t see it as a logical conclusion. If it comes down to a battle between my wants and what makes sense given the facts, I’ll take the latter every time.
Everything that you think or do, whether of your own initiation, reaction or training, – it is your own doing. The “need” to blame others and the ideas of responsability originate within society and self reflection.
Blame is subjective, but him being a ‘criminal’ means that we will not fit into the society’s system properly, and then police will attempt to nutralize him for this reason only.
If you knew just how much of our “self” is depermined my our natural instinct and experience… Would you disown all judgment & labels, or keep them in a more malable state?
Well, bank robber/artist are not genetic, they are developed skills due to encouragement and guidance from the people around them, initially their parents.
We can take the blame for everything, because it is a part of our system, but once we realize that it is not for our greater good, even our sub/un-conscious mind will slowly change and minimize this attribute.
Blame, this kind of blame, looks to be a purely dogmatic foolishness. “Have we created them” – is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. These people are the natural result of organizations, cultures and religions reacting with other groups and systems; – and let the wisest win.
The typical, suicidal, invisible Xian culture passed down from a legacy of slavery and judgmental self-hate; thanks allot feudalism! Ofcourse it’s our fault and our problem, even if it isn’t, because we have to unconsciously comply to “morality” before self, don’t we? [sarcasm]
Be more selfish and responsable.
Blaming ourself for the reactions of others? And I suppose shame is healthy/natural to, no wonder only humans wear cloths.
??? that’s what you think, but just you wait and see what less then 20 years will even bring!
But feeling proud of ourself will cause us to value what we have more then if we were to feel down about it, and in the long run this would be more efficient and productive.
Xunzian,
free will arises logically from the notion that we are the only “animals” which are aware of their acts and feelings,and also aware that, in a limited sense, they can cause some of their behaviour and make some basic choices.
Of course there isn’t such a thing as “absolute” free will- there is just a limited range of choice, within a certain realm of possibilities.
Studying statistics and psychology or sociology you can predict how many men will jump from a bridge or buy a porn video tomorrow, but you won’t be obliged to do any of these things.
Ok the book I’m talking about is:
“The splendid feast of reason” by S.J. Singer.
Basically it states with a lot of logic and proof that what people are able to learn is determined by genes. Environment and learning are not so much to determine an individuals basic behaviour but rather to infulence the extent of our genetic makeup. For example theres no way, even with the best education in the world that I would become the next Albert Einstein.
I agree that environment play a big role in who we will become. But as stated above, people who are good in language are so because of their genes not because of their choice.
But why do you think the way you do? Its because the way the brain is wired. I’m not blaming anyone for anything, how can I its not their fault.
Me too. Until recently I did believe in free will.
I’m not sure what science says about that. Lets say its true, then why is it that poor people commit more crimes, in the US there are far more black people in jail then whites. Their environmnet has caused their choices. Its not their will that people treat them like s**t or that its harder for them to get education and jobs. Therefore their more likely to go to jail. Common sense at least to me.
Its either real or a very convincing illusion. But the real question is… if the illusion is real to everyone is it really an illusion?
Is there free will?
Sort of; let me explain. Firstly, I should point out that this question has always interested me and I have, at different times espoused each radical view (yes, absolutely, and no, not at all) and have settled somewhere in the middle.
I once was a devoutee of the Existentialist school, allying myself with Sartre and Simone, who argued that there is absolute free will. With this philosophy we are each our own masters and there is only one influence that affects your decision making, and that is your own will.
Then, after going through some major changes in how I percieved the human experience, I became enchanted with Clarence Darrow’s view, that each man’s actions are merely calculated by a combination of genetic material and prior circumstances and learned stimuli. No one, in this school of thought, actually and truly “thinks”, it is a sort of godless predestination, as one has no control over ones fate.
As I stated earlier, I have now taken a moderate stance on the free will question. Does conditioning and genetics play a large part in what we decide and how we behave? Yes. Are there times, such as a situation that calls for immediate (re)action without consideration that are not chosen or planned, but just happen? Yes, again.
Can we, as human beings, actually decide to do anything, rather then merely act on previous experiences and genetically wired responses? I think so. Though learning will heavily effect what we do, I do not believe we are slaves to our past, merely we students of it.
As for genetics, if we were purely “nature over nurture” in terms of behavior, then the ability to learn, to remember, and to think ahead would be useless (and non-existent) because we could merely rely on instincts to get by. We can think, we do not always just react.
So, no man is free from learned or genetic predisposition in regards to decisions, but at the same time, one is at least partially responsible for what he does/does not do.
Enviroment and Genetic influence so much in every person and afterwards we can look at other things. Universe is The God, so we can’t deny that it even can be a pre-program for every one of us! I think we still need more times to find out if we have freewill or not.
You see, I don’t think that our place in the animal kingdom is so unique. Look at pets, they are clearly self-aware and exhibit a variety of learned behaviours as well as emotional responses. We’ve got the most developed language and tool usage – we are the smartest too. However, saying that the tiger is the biggest cat doesn’t mean that there are no other cats.
if any will is to be acted upon, by a rational person, there are requirements and effects, the requirements are awareness of that will and the effects, and the effects are feelings, or the response of the senses to stimuli. this stimuli which i can interact with is my environment, my environment is everything i come into contact with my senses. when i experience this environment i form
beliefs about it, limited by my minds capacity for reason. the greator you’re capacity the more ease with wich you will operate in you’re environment, a person who operates efficiantly in one environment doesn’t neccissarily do so in all environments. this is where insight comes into play, the more accurate you’re beliefs the better judgement you have. free will can’t exist during action because action is a physical experience and the body has its limitations.free will in the mind has as much weight as any other thought but its not that kind of scale i use to measure.
just thought id throw a thought out
Is there free will?
What is free will?
If we look at the World there are two (maybe three) categories of known explanations for events. There are those that are causally explained, and those that are not explained.
When we speak of free will, we are not talking about an explanation for action. It goes against causality, and explanation is definitionally causal.
x happens so y happens so z happens.
(The possible third is randomness, but that doesn’t allow for free will either).
You cannot make guesses about what is not yet explained, otherwise you are allowing anything to go. Feel free to do that, but I would expect that most people who like philosophy do not like this.
I also do not think you can make inferences about the fact that there is not yet an explanation (irreducible complexity and intelligent design, anyone?).
So anyway, I would challenge anyone who believes in free will to be able to actually describe what it is, without making a reference to causality.
Some people have talked about genes and being raised in certain conditions, but this really misses the point I feel.
The scope is much more than simply categorising the conditions. The contingent causalities of the human mind are immensely complex. Add one little experience to a person’s life and it can change the tack of that life profoundly from where it would have gone had this experience not been there.
The human mind is a very complex and chaotic system, but a system nevertheless. The above can be understood in terms of the butterfly effect.
The fact that people do not conform to categorised stereotypes is no argument against determinism.
Nor is the fact that we can will something free from other people’s interference. Whenever we make a choice we do so based on who we are. Who we are at the moment of that choice is in turn based on our experiences and physiology.
The human mind is a self-editing system, which has lead to some of the confusion surrounding our apparent free will. At any given moment we are capable of making choices that can over-ride fully who we have been before and our inclinations (though I think few humans realise this ability let alone utilise it).
We can choose to be a different person who has different inclinations.
However, the type of person we choose to be is itself based on who we are at that moment of choosing, which is in turn based on… etc.
This can also be explained in the terms of a hypothetical world. For those of you who do believe in free will, imagine a World in which free will does not exist.
In this World when you act it is based on a computation in your brain.
Your brain develops possible choices, and these possible choices are assigned values.
One of the choices that is always present is ‘develop more choices’ and ‘evaluate the choice’s values’, and usually also ‘do nothing’. When one of the active choices is assigned a value higher than ‘develop more choices’, ‘evaluate the choice’s values’ and ‘do nothing’ then you act in line with that particular choice.
Question: How do you differentiate between this hypothetical and fully deterministic World and the free will World you live in?