Free Will

Hi,

I’m taking a course in into philosophy this summer and am writing a paper on free will, i was wondering if by any chance you guys could help me find counter argments to my feelings (in an effort to strength my argument)

thanks,

Dan


Premise: There is free will; Although Previous factors (such as natural human tendencies, our upbringing, and results of previous decisions) do play a role, they only play a role the extent that they limit the spectrum within which your opinions lie and lead some of your options to seem more compelling than others. Although some of your options may be stronger in you are in no way required to chose the more compelling options, which option you chose is ultimately up to you.

Examples:

  1. Spectrum of thought: Consider the following situation: you have gotten into an argument with a girl. Assuming you are a normal, average person resorting to physical violence is not an option that you would even consider - it would be outside your “spectrum” of thought. Conversely, though if you had entered into an argument with another man (how do I not sound so shovanist without becoming really wordy) resorting to physical violence might become an option.

Extending that scenario a bit further, lets say that God-forbid you were beaten as a child, resorting to violence would not only have been within your spectrum, it would most likely also be the most compelling option, but it would not necessarily be the option you chose to carry out since avoiding violence would still be within your spectrum.

  1. Not necessarily following the most compelling option: It is generally accepted that the greatest motivation for all living creatures is self-preservation, yet people still smoke, do drugs, eat excessively, and other thing with are detrimental to them, thus going against their naturally most compelling option.

Living with my view:

Unlike a hard determinist’s views the factors which control the spectrum within witch your options lay is alterable, you can voluntarily chose to alter your spectrum through introspection and self-improvement.

The fact that your spectrum is alterable provides a justification for imprisonment and other forms of punishment. In a proper government punishment are handed two for two reasons, either to hold one responsible for his actions and punish them or to repair to make them fit to function in society. Both reasons are justifiable under my definition of free will, since people choose their actions (they could have chosen a different option) they are can be held responsible for them, and prison and other forms of punishment also help to expand the “spectrum” of thought for those who require it. An argument can be made that those people who commit crimes because the thought of doing anything else is outside of the “spectrum” of their thought, for these people a proper government has a special classification, commonly known as insanity – where it is acknowledged that a person has done wrong, but they have only done wrong because it was beyond them to even consider doing anything else. In cases of insanity the person who has done wrong is still held accountable for his actions, but he is held accountable on a different level and is given different treatment.

Objections:
“All a human is a complex set of chemical pathways all of which follow the laws of science and thus have predictable results” – “ The significance of free will”

You failed to link anything in this post with an argument for free-will. I see a premise but nothing backing up this premise. I cannot offer you advice for strengthening your argument as their isn’t one.

I’m not so clear on what you mean? Are the examples not meant to back up each aspect?

thanks for the feedback,

Dan

Quantum mechanics and quantum tunneling proves this incorrect. Technically, the contents of the brain are just a big wavefunction with certain probabilities of interaction and location. Obviously, the classical interactions are much more probable than the strange quantum ones but it’s not completely accurate to say that chemical pathways have predictable results, especially on the scale of the human brain, the neurochemistry of which is still not understood by man. And especially when you’re referring to predicting something so specific like a person’s action as a result of a chemical pathway.

It has been argued that quantum mechanics and its impact on causality are not quite that clearcut. Everett many-world interpretation argues that all the possibilities happen simultaneously on parallel universes, so while we perceive the world as nondeterministic the universes are actually deterministic. Another interpretation by Bohm “postulates the existence of a non-local, universal wavefunction (Schrödinger equation) which allows distant particles to interact instantaneously.”

I’m here treading on waters that are quite new to me, though.

I’ve posted it before and I’ll post it again

The notion of freedom of the will is an invention of ruling classes.

Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow 9

hello there.

it may be an idea to check out the following threads:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=142707

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=144609

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=144347

there are better ones that i can’t find right now but you will find arguments are counter arguments aplenty here.

bonne chance

Hey listen, you have everything you need within yourself, you just gotta think about it. I’ll tell you this, and it did take me a couple years to figure out but the question of free-will is a rather simple one when you ask the right question. It’s not do I have free-will, but Who am I? When you figure that out the question of the will is going to reveal itself to you unmistakably. It won’t be what you’re expecting either.

I’ll tell you what I did at first. Ask someone to define a free will for you. The answer to all things begins and ends with questioning. Ask people about it and you’ll see what confusion such a popular assumption stirs up. But just remember it’s not do I, but who am I. Figure it out.

Even if the choices we make are already determined by a chain of actions and events then that still does not defeat the fact that we are “free” to make those choices which have caused the most recent choice. The choices one makes may be determined but the choice itself we are condemed to make.

I don’t really get what you are saying, Rami. Could you reword it?

When one rejects our “freedom”. They are are not rejecting the fact that we make choices because it is quite clear that we make choices. Free will is to believe that choices we make are uncaused, i am saying that whether or not our choices are caused or uncaused does not defeat the fact that we are free to make choices. My choice may have been caused by some other choice/event but we are still free to make ‘a’ choice, regardless of whether or not that choice is caused or uncaused.

If my choices are determined then it is I who created this chain of events. You are thrown into the world and then by no choice of yours; you MUST make choices.

Is it true that you make choices? Even if these choices are determined by previous choices.

Does a dog have free will? If he is free, he can run wherever he wants and make all sorts of choices as when to eat, drink, walk, run, and many other choices including changing his mind when deciding on a new course of action. In light of these circumstances, is it safe to say that the dog has free will?

When “I” choose to eat, “I CHOOSE” to eat. The choice i make may be caused by physical desire reducing the freedom in my choice but the choice is still mine. I make the choice the choice to eat, what to eat etc…even if these choices are determined by what food i like/dislike…the choice is still mine. I MAKE the choice because i have to, because by no choice of mine i must choose. We are free to choose but not free for having a choice.

Rami.

Rami

Have you ever heard the expression:“You can lead a horse to wwater but you can’t make him drink.” His choice.

Try giving a dog some food he doesn’t want. I assure you he will CHOOSE not to eat it. It is his choice. So would you say he has free will?

the dog is not free to choose, he MUST choose.

it is not known if dogs have an idea of “thyself”.

We have no choice about death, it seems. Unless you believe in the afterlife.

When one asks about Free Will one always has to ask what constitutes this ‘I’ that appears to have Free Will, and if one has Free Will whether such a thing as a constituent, original (both sense) self can be fairly said to exist.

One also has to ask what one gains from believing one has free will.

Rami

The dog makes one choice. Different conditions present themselves and he is free to change his mind without feeling embarassed or guilty about such a change. It is not so easy forus to change our mind with all our misguided fears and inhibitions. We lack the will to do so. It could be argued that the dog has more willpower than we do.

Regardless of who is at the door, they made a good point.

Absolute truth, no one can deny this !!
So, how far did your revelation get you dsalvato ?
Who you are is only first step, do you know who you are dsalvato ?
Is that body (and everything in it) of yours realy yours ??
Or it’s just your parents DNA mixed & grown up.
Do you have emotions ? are they really yours ?
Define your soul and your spirit.
You indeed are on the right track, as soon as you start feeling who you are, sooner you’ll start seeing why, where and when you are.
Which are 3 dimensions Superior to " who you are ? "
btw, people on this forum that so desperately believe in " Free will " need
to understand life on earth, that is Controled by Law of Nature, that we call Reality.According to that Law, there is no My or Yours reality, there is Only one ultimate Reality in which Elements in Equation can be true or
false, truth or lie.There is nothing in between.
We live and die, limited with “Time”, we dying, we are not actualy living.
And because lack of absolute freedom, we do not have free will to do,
we still have free will to think we do.
All you guys can read all “famous” Pholosophers all you want, using all
Fancy words you want, but truth is something that 10year old can completely understand and feel.

            much truth and love !

If you’ve ever tried to give a dog a bath when it wasn’t in the mood you’ll probably realise dogs have far more willpower than many humans.

My point is that I may be free to decide not to listen to a given expert on a subject about which I’m interested, I might choose to simply stand up and walk out of the room and thereby deny his authority (at least within my own mind/self). But would I learn a damn thing? No. Sometimes riding the wave is more fun than diving off the surfboard.