i think there are many angles to look at this from but first we need to agree on what “will” is and what is meant by freedom of this “will”. a thought i had, resulting from Nietschie’s take on will is that our will before action is the desire we have for a result. our will during action is our commitment to attaining that result. strength or weakness of will is our ability to attain the result we desire.
This point has been debated endlessly, now I have already worked out and posted the solution long ago. but for your sake, I shall repost.
Thought is like reading a book, you do not know it unless you are thinking about it.
if your thoughts are determined by physical brain, then is it possible to work out the laws of physics and determine what you will think of next?
if that is to be the case, is it possible for you to know now what you will think of next? impossible. so even if determinism is true, we would never know. it is unproveable.
freewill is not the opposite of determinism like many thinks. Freewill is about taking responsibility for our own actions. In my view, when a determinist fails, he would blame it all on fate, that some how he was determined to fail by others. It was not his choice because he was determined to fail though he has no prove of it.
a free will believer like myself, would say, ‘i lost because this or that had gone wrong, or I missed those points’, I would improve myself and take responsibility for my own actions.
done to death.
Ahh, the nature of free will has been done to death since the beginning of its conception. It will never be truly determined except on a personal level. Each person must determine what is free will for their own soul. Is it my free will to be here or am I pushed by something else unknown. Crap if I know and crap if I care.
I perceive that by by free will I am a parent but, my free will is curtailed by having to set a good example for my child. So do I have free will in my life?, nope. My kid took alot of that away. Does a higher entity control my thoughts, not to my knowledge he/she has not told me so.
Free will is not ever going to be answered fully as long as man thinks about space, dimensions and other sentient entitys, there are numerous possibilities to the free will question. If anyone person thinks that they have the total answer, then they only answer for themselves. Wow what a wishy washy answer I gave. Maybe not.
Thanks for putting an end to the hundreds of years of thought that have been directed towards this question. Good thing you've cleared that up. :laughing:
First off, it is [i]theoretically[/i] possible to determine what one will consciously experience at any given point in time, given enough information about the system that the conscious being is part of and functioning in. The only problem is that the deterministic processes, at an elementary level, are not well understood, and even if they were understood, would be too numerous to compute completely.
All this assumes that one's consciousness is a physical system on some level, rejecting the dualism that most people think of when they think of the mind and the body, the mental and the physical. Assuming that the mind, on some level, is theoretically quantifiable in the same manner as other matter is theoretically quantifiable naturally leads to a deterministic theory, if one is to assume that physics are deterministic. While it is vaguely arguable that physics are deterministic (as quantum physics are generally thought of as probabilistic), the issue dissolves upon inspection into a question of epistemology - that is, do we have to understand the deterministic mechanisms of a system for them to exist?
So, we've made the assumptions:
-
The mind is a physical system.
-
Physical systems are deterministic.
Isn’t the mind then deterministic, and following suit, every conscious event?
Once again, though, determinism is not a philosophy to live by. Even if free will is only an illusion, it is one that we all live shrouded in and its status as an illusion is no excuse for immoral action. Please stop insulting people by applying their theories (that you don’t seem to understand very completely) in ways that they were not meant to be applied.
I believe in determinism as a (pretty) basic fact of life, yet I still believe that accountability is one of the most powerful/valuable social/moral virtues/methods.
As a more abstract example: Being a free will believer, it is already determined by the state of your consciousness before you considered your previous actions how you will react to them.
Peace, love, vegetarianism!
Determinism holds that each state of affairs is necessitated (determined) by the states of affairs that preceded it, an extension of cause and effect. --wikipedia
Free will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves.
first of all i don’t think either theory is universally applicable, neither are they at odds with each other. I rather Nietsche’s take on will being more than just a choice. will in the real world like he says is a matter of strong and weak. maybe a combonation of potential and desire. it doesn’t matter what i want to accomplish it takes effort to get it done so no act of willing is free.
on determinism, the only thing thats unavoidable is reaction, if you put me in any situation, you can gaurentee a reaction. i could never put a guess to what i’d do or think in any situation without having prior experience, be it thought or physical experience, but when the situation it brought to my attention either hypothetically or experientially i will always have an opinion.
on free will, freedom of choice exists but choice and will are different concepts.
Here’s an interresting thought for you gents
If we were to turn back time… would things play out the same way they did the first time?
If so… then determinism is true… if not… then free will is…
The interresting bit is… given free will… the past is not a solid thing… for if we were to travel back and observe our past we might suddenly experience ourselves making different choices then we did the first time… in which case… we would not be the same person… cuz obviously our will was a different one…
bogles the mind a bit… hence determinism must be the case… for anything to have an identity it must be itself at any given time… therfor i could not have chosen any differently in the past then what i did… cuz if i had… i would not be me…
simple logic really… A=A
hehe… I seem to be bringing logic up in allot of my posts lately… but i find it to be the best tool for persuasion… well… cuz… things make sense that way…
you ever play texas holdem? i’ve had a lot of hands that i wish i could have gone back and bet differently. when i first came out of high school i took a BSc. (christmas grad) looking back now i think i should have taken a BA (where my intrests lye and i don’t like lab) people in general are indecisive.
thats why i can say regret exists and no one would debate it. different choices don’t make you a different person, they keep you occupied.
for anything to have an identity it must be itself at any given time… therfor i could not have chosen any differently in the past then what i did… cuz if i had… i would not be me…
Trevor_W: good topic (even though lots of people are surfeit with it). I’m not familiar with Nietschze’s take on the will - the man who’s theories about the will I’m gonna look into first are Schopenhauer’s. See you next year 
PoR (I feel like regular now, using this abbreviation 
): That’s a good scenario that I haven’t seen before (predicting one’s future thoughts, and getting into paradoxes). I’m a determinist, and my view is that the Uncertaintly Principle, coupled with the potentially too-big-too-handle nature of the data and equations, means that the kind of predictions you invoked will always be impossible in principle, so there paradox will never materialise.
Something that I find quite pleasing is the way in which the deterministic nature of the universe (if it is so) can be a factor in a decision. For example, I could neglect to answer the phone on the grounds that “it was never gonna be answered by me anyway!” I would argue that this isn’t feedback per se, so people can’t dodge accountability on the grounds of fatalism.
Emorgasm: nice post - I pretty much agree with all of it.
Mad Man P: My answer is that, if another universe was created with exactly the same starting conditions as ours, then it would unfold in exactly the same way, atom for atom. I can’t prove it, but I think Ockham would’ve approved.
Emorgasm
of course I did, because I don’t wait for philosophers to tell me what to think, I am smart enough to think for myself.
hum… Hello??? we are talking about theoretical theories, so how can we talk about the theoretical without making theoretical assumptions??? ever heard of assumptions?? hello??
remember, I am making assumptions and SO ARE YOU! ahahahah
most people are not stupid, they don’t even think of dualism. only the intellectually elite think about it, and only I have the solution. If you do not assume that consciousness is physical, then, what the hell?
Look, the mind can not exist without the brain, but the brain can exist with out the mind. it seems pretty clear to me that the mind is brain dependant. and the brain is physical. also it does not matter what most people think, what is important is what is right. ok?
what? are you still speaking English? if physics is not deterministic, then how come you can repeat all experiements, what would cause you to doubt that it is not deterministic. if we do not understand the body, does that mean the body does not exist? what are you on about?
so my famous paradox come in, can you think what you’ll think of next?
hello? is English your second language? can you read? You have said nothing about my well presented paradox? since when do you make no assumption? but with my assumptions I made the paradox, something you did not think of.
I think you mean you have faith, that determinism is a basic fact of, whether it is pretty or ugly, it matters not. could you please proof it without assumptions? hello? are you still there?
what? I think you are mixing cause and effect and apply them mindlessly to determinism theory. you are saying my past determine, my present and thus my future, which is a causal relationship. tell me, what I will think of next?
ChimneySweep
sure by all means!
You are smart for picking it up. good for you! glad you like it.
mad man max—but what if you went back, and things happened exactly the same, not because it had to, but because its the way everyone wanted it to happen. were not being pushed by an equation grace is not mathematical. neither is hate. but i think your refering to like would i have all the same thoughts in all the same order…i dont know but probobly, assumin all the stimuli is the same. the point is the end result comes from a whimsical realm that math cant fucking touch: imagination, dreams. on a further note whats to make us think that past images stay in the past. its all in the present, but with different scenery. i would guess. theres nothing to travel back to, . however you can travel back in time, in your mind , your memory. if you can remember when you were a racist, and punched a black kid for no reason…and you feel bad about it, and change your views in the present time.–then you just went back in time, and did things differently, you broke the equation, you set yourself free. memory is our time machine and we can think independently of what happened the first time, and alter our future.
I wasn’t going to post on this thread but I’ve got one spin-off question for advocates of the theory of freedom of will/thought.
What is your criterion for distinguishing when you are thinking for yourself and when you are not thinking for yourself?
I have read many philosophies over the decades about the human spirit and will. I can’t quote accurately any philosopher but, I do know their writings. There is one philosopher that boiled down all the questions about spirit and will in one sentence I can quote him and name him because he said it all so quick and sweet.
Quote: " I yam what I yam and that is all that I yam" end quote . Popeye the sailorman.
That sentence applies and can apply to the questions. Looking at that sentence from different angles and perspectives it rings quite true. I love it because, it does not make your eyes cross from reading alot of airy words and yet, it makes you think hard about questions and answers.
— Thought is like reading a book, you do not know it unless you are thinking about it.
O- This makes little sense but that is perhaps irrelevant since so many different allegories have been dreamed to make universal what is principally particular.
— if your thoughts are determined by physical brain, then is it possible to work out the laws of physics and determine what you will think of next?
if that is to be the case, is it possible for you to know now what you will think of next? impossible. so even if determinism is true, we would never know. it is unproveable.
O- This is not about knowing what you or I will “think” of next, but regardless of that mystery, is the next thought you entretain completely “free”? That is undetermined by any other thought, or sense-experience? We are never without circumstances; without some determinant which to some extent is manifested into our future.
Let’s look at it another way. I don’t know waht my next thought will be but I know that it will be somehow tied to other thoughts. I have “reasons”.
— freewill is not the opposite of determinism like many thinks. Freewill is about taking responsibility for our own actions. In my view, when a determinist fails, he would blame it all on fate, that some how he was determined to fail by others.
O- If I fail to fly by flapping my arms like a bird, should I blame myself? The trick is to know when we are truly determined and when we simply imagine that to be the case. But this is not about finding a cop-out. My question is are we truly limited in any way? “Free” is free, but what I have found and some scientist second, is that we are not free, but to some degree determined, and as I said before, it is reasonable that it is so; not because I am a fatalist, looking for an escapade, but because it makes perfect sense- that is, the argument determined my conclusion.
— a free will believer like myself, would say, ‘i lost because this or that had gone wrong, or I missed those points’, I would improve myself and take responsibility for my own actions.
O- It is a myth of strenght which gives comfort to those that adhere to it. Whatever the world throws, it is you, a God in your own way, free from all contagion and penetration from the world; it’s messiness and chaos. No. You lay free from all necessity and would certainly find it in you the fault as to why you cannot live forever, or fly like an eagle, or write like Shakespeare. It is not that you can’t but that you simply choose not to.
Ockham and I both approve of your answer, my determinist friend!
What is your criterion for distinguishing when you are thinking for yourself and when you are not thinking for yourself?
fatalism is for the weak. its a way of detaching yourself from you ability think independently, what leads your assumptions other than initially the subject being discussed and secondly your opinion on the matter?
if your not “thinking” for yourself, who or what is “thinking” for you?
i’m not implying that there are not factors that influence my thinking, as the context of an opinion is essential for correctly understanding a view on any topic, i’m just saying that i posses an element of control over what i experience.
Quote:
if your not “thinking” for yourself, who or what is “thinking” for you?
i’m not implying that there are not factors that influence my thinking, as the context of an opinion is essential for correctly understanding a view on any topic, i’m just saying that i posses an element of control over what i experience.
[/quote]
But . . . what’s thinking at all? We’re all nothing more than a sack of chemicals, right? So, we begin life as a sack of chemicals dictated by the tyranny of our genes. Before birth, and most certainly afterwards, these genes and chemicals begins to interact with the environment in a feedback-loop, yet there is no room for free will.
Genes create chemicals.
These chemicals (either small molecules or proteins) either act as direct signalling molecules (such as cytokines) or allow for electrical signalling (K+ channels, ect.).
Our environment singals either an electrochemical change (opening or closing of channels) or a singalling molecule release/uptake.
These changes lead to an altered transcription of genes (the prefered method of Eukaryotes in response to an environmental signal).
This leads us back to the initial statement.
Free will doesn’t enter the equation anywhere, unless you believe in the soul or some other mumbo-jumbo.
good new year to all.
Very few people on this board have put any thought into the questions we are trying to answer here. To highlight this point i shall refer to the post near the top of this page, a point suggested by PoR and made by others in varying ways
To make things a little clearer for you PoR, Both phrases mean exactly the same thing.
1st quote: a determinist fails because something else went wrong
2nd quote: a free willer failed because something else went wrong.
Free will is the thought that a human being is in control of their actions, it is not about taking responsibility. To highlight this:
You are a human being stuck to the planet earth. According to PoR and the other free willers, this is because they want to be stuck to the planet. According to myself and other determinists this is becase gravity pushes or pulls you to the surface of the earth.
Responsibilty in a situation lies with all affecting forces ie Outcome determined by all participating objects and energies.
Free will of a person does not exist unless you are in complete control of EVERY force/object that affects a situation. And all forces/objects that affect them and so on.
It’s quite a simple concept but difficult for a human being’s limited imagination to accept.
Test your free will at the Social Science forum - “Don’t come here” post
when someone says hi to me i dont go on auto piolet and unconciously say “hi’ back, i think to myself " was he being sincere, does he want to here somthing funny?, is he being a sarcastic jerk ect…i also feel some of my emotions, the emotion coming from ,my soul, …i then say to him smellow. or maybe i say " the real trinity isnt from the matrix , shes about dancing, also she likes fencing in the moonlight.”