Free Will
 

I know we had this topic a few times on the old boards, but does anyone believe in free will? I once had a feeling that perhaps it could be rationalized by the soul having an influence on the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, thus being able to control one's neurotransmitters, but that simply doesn't fit into a rational scientific outlook. I'm a staunch reductionist, and I've come to see free will as a mere superstition. I do have a theory of ethereal will affecting our lives, but I won't get into that here.

Any thoughts on this? Mind you, those thoughts are just electro-chemical impulses generated by your mental conditioning and brain chemistry. But share them as you will.

The electrochemical interactions in my brain make me say this:

1. I don't have a "soul." I have a mind.
2. My mind lets me choose what I want to do - thus, I have free will.
3. If you disagree, I will demonstrate my free will by using it to kick you in the nose.

In seriousness,

1. There are a lot of things that have hardly been touched by science - it has a long way to go before it explains everything, and free will is one of the most cryptic issues.

2. It is too foreign to the understanding of any human to conceive that he doesn't actually decide what he does. No matter where philosophical debates lead us, all but the most rank materialists will strongly believe in free will.

It is too foreign to the understanding of any human to conceive that he doesn't actually decide what he does

Actually, it seems pretty straight-forward to me. More likely it's a matter of pride that needs to be beaten.

No matter where philosophical debates lead us

I'd say that philosophy has no business in this discussion.

Personally, I think of free will as a wishy washy subject.

I don't necessarily believe that an invisible man in the sky or whatnot commands us what to do all the time, nor do I believe that our will is completely ours to control.

Free will is of course a reality, we all possess it. Most people can have theirs manipulated. Real estate agents, cops, etc. can take advantage of this. If Free Will were 100% constant, who would ever do anything they did not want to do? I could dive a lot deeper into this when you introduce such things as subliminal messages, conditioning, etc.

But to keep it simple for now... there is no such thing as 100% free will. Some of it is governed by how you want to present yourself to society (hence the reason I believe most people act different around other people than they would in intimate quarters), and upbringing/environment (unless a kid has enough intelligence to figure things out for himself, wouldn't you think a child born to say, Louis Farrakhan would grow up adamantly anti-white? And did he make this choice, or was he raised to make this choice?)

I take no credit for this excerpt thus establishing credibility. Please Read it if interested in free will. A very interesting theory.

This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle and 350 B.C. Saint Augustine,
Saint Thomas Aquinas - these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays, we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules; We're mostly water. Our behavior isn't going to be an exception to these basic physical laws, so it starts to look like whether it's God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do, or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom. So, now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will and say, "Oh, well it's just a historical anecdote; It's sophomoric; It's a question with no answer," you know, just forget about it. But, the question keeps staring you right in the face. If you think about individuality, for example: who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make or take responsibility [for]. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty, you can only be admired or respected, for things you did of your own free will. So the question keeps coming back and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all your decisions are really just a charade. Think about how it happens; There's some electrical activity in your brain, your neurons fire, they send a signal down into your nervous system, it passes along down into your muscle fibers, they twitch, and you might, say, reach out your arm. It looks like it's a free action on your part, but every one of those, every part of that process, is actually governed by physical law: chemical laws, electrical laws, and so on. So, now it starts to looks like the Big Bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of our history, the whole rest of human history and even before, is really just sort of the playing out of sub-atomic particles according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we're special; We think we have some kind of special dignity. But, that now comes under threat, I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.

So, you might be saying, "Well wait a minute, what about quantum mechanics? I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. It's really a probabilistic theory; There's room; It's loose; It's not deterministic, and that's going to enable us to understand free will." But, if you look at the details, it's not really going to help because, what happens is, you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is, apparently, a bit random; They sort of swerve. Their behavior is absurd, in the sense that it's unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue according to a probabilistic framework. But, is that going to help with freedom? I mean, should our freedom just be a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving.

So, we can't just ignore the problem. We have to find room in our contemporary world-view for persons, with all that that entails. Not just bodies, but persons. And, that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility, and trying to understand individuality.

What's posted above pretty much sums it up, but doesn't mention the joker in the solitaire: consiousness. We are aware of our actions, a factor that doesn't fit into the equation. Whether we just feel like we have a say in what we do or if we in fact have control over our actions can, in my opinion, not be answered until we figure out why the hell we know we exist in the first place. The self must be defined before we can decide whether the self is a passive spectator or an active initiator.

But yeah, most of the time I don't think there is free will. I want there to be, though.

Free Willy 2 was a major dissapointment.

>:

-willie

I don't think that you can find the answer in reductionist philosophy as, in this case, the sum of ourselves is definitely not the same as the whole - i.e. you weed out what you're looking for in the analytical process. Richard Feyman, the physicist had a great quote about this (re: rose and quantum physics) but I can't find it.

:lol

This entire discussion is philosophy.

Not if all of our decisions can be rationalized by scientific compulsion. Where is there room to throw in philosophy?

Soul=spirit
Spirit=energy
mind=energy


"All things flow according to the whims of the great magnet".

All will and action comes according to another's will and actions, you decide you want to eat it's because your body tells you to eat. You decide you'd prefer to eat a corndog it's because your tastebuds enjoy them.
You want to kick someone's ass, it's because they pissed you off. You want to cuss at someone, see above. You want to respond to this thread, it's because someone else posted it. Cause and effect echoes all beyond, and action requires interaction. Complimentary opposites of a love affair lasting sometimes only seconds, sometimes not even knowing of the affair. Interaction requires two, free will has no place there.
The only free will is no action, which only exists because of a lack of interaction. All things are a result of another, even the lack of another can often cause an interaction.

I wouldn't call any of that free will, maybe 'probationary will' would fit.

Indeed, the question of free will is a whale of a question!





I'd like to thank sdole for giving me the foundation upon which to construct that cheesy one-liner. We did it, baby!

The problem with breaking it down into it's component parts (i.e. reductionism) is that I don't think that present day science has the capacity to envision all the component parts necessary to do so ... and that's just speaking physiologically. If life, on the grand scale, were truly deterministic, there is not a computer large enough (nor I believe there will ever be. Re: Godel) to incorporate every minute detail in the universe that would enable a person to precict their respective future. Isaac Asimov attacked this problem (philosophically) in his Foundation series.

SEPTEMBER 11 2003: NEVER FORGET.

THIS WAS THE DAY KELLY SAID SOMETHING THAT WASN'T COMPLETE SHIT.

I do that every now and then. ;)

freewill=variablequantammechanics

I like to think that when we die and we go to heaven god sits down with us and explains life, the universe, and whatever questions we have; that we will look back and realise that we had absolutley the least idea of what goes on around us...

Well I'd like to think that if god exists when I die he won't explain shit, and I'll be allowed to create my own scenarios of existence for all eternity, but what I wish doesn't amount to shit.

Free will can best be viewed from this perspective: If you were hypothetically allowed to, from another plane of existance totally seperate from ours, view the course of all events in a given period of time in our plane, then "rewind" so to speak, and watch again, nothing would be different. There is one outcome because our existance is temporally linear.

Two easy arguments against this:
1. What if time isn't linear? Then there are multiple outcomes that all occur seperately. It doesn't change the signifigance of my previous statements.

2. What if you were to rewind and something different happened? Because nothing in that plane of existance has been changed this would mean the change occured randomly. If you view "free will" as the existance of random probability, then it exists, but its not at all what most people seem to believe it is.

What if things occured simotaneously rather than seperately. If in fact time was so "non-linear" that you could watch it unfold from any point going into any direction and get the exact same result. You could even watch it expand in a three-dimensional spherical frame, and still note that time flowed in such the same discreet and yet chaotic pattern that you could only help but laugh at the futility of it all? What if you took acid?

Actually, I think that's the closest thing to my thinking I've heard yet. Multiple, random co-existences occuring across many universe under a chaotic pattern. No beginning. No end. No time. :/ Just an endless, nontemporal looping pattern reigned in by the laws of chaos. A big, sick futile joke. Hi God! :)

Can't forget the curvatures and holes, though, nor the curvatures on the holes.

Difficult topic.

If there's no free will and I am the sum of my genetic ancestry applied in a grander physical model, then my current views and beliefs are also the same. By extension, the way I live my life, and where I am aiming at is again, the product of my genetic makeover's interaction with it's environment. This model seems to apply to the world in general.

If all that is so, then my current anti-instinct beliefs are the product of said instinct. (I believe instinctual urge to be something to question and try to not act upon for various reasons) Then, extended to a great degree, in action, my instinct is dictating the nullification of itself. But unlike the depressed man that commits suicide, I could set myself on fire while being chemically - more or less - balanced. My action would be the product of reasoning.

Now a deterministic model of reality would suggest movement, refinement towards a perfect model. Wouldn't it then be a contradiction for a great aspect of that model to work towards it's own removal? Especially since instinct has been a tried and tested and working aspect of this movement for thousands of years? Wouldn't me, by setting myself on fire because of what I believe in, be the product of a failed system? Whouldn't the general direction and move towards refinement of such a determinism clearly NOT be served by such an action?

It's not the strongest argument for free will, or a semblance of it, but it does leave room for discussion. Clearly man is an animal, but he is also an altogether diffferent machine. And I think the start of it's deviation from the deterministic model begins with the concept of sentience. The moment a dialectic relation is formed between oneself and it's environment, and most importantly how one is not the other, at that moment room for choice is created.

Your reasoning is still the result of genetic makeup and all the events that have transgressed to affect your reasoning process. Setting youself on fire is still an act which can be defended by "reason" as reason is relative.

And for all you know you could be a genetic mutation of human that has a propensoty for being emmersed in flame.

If you want to study human instinct I suggest you picked up "The Blank Slate". Its an excellent read for those interested in true human nature.

The point was that this reasoning is defeating the determinist movement towards a more perfect model. Nature seems to have no propensity for self-defeating application.

But thanks for the book pitch.

The fact you post in this thread is merely because the thread was created. There is no "Free Will" in that, albeit you chose to post in the thread. Without this thread you would've never been able to post here, with it you have. Thusly, your freewil right there has been effectively cut in half, that's 50%.
Now, the kind of responses you can generate are marginally effected by I would say five percent, because other's may have posted similar things. In retrospect, what you have posted may have been altered by means of establishment, i.e., someone else posted something and gave you an idea.
Thusly, the forms of responses you could have conjued is now at 55%, give or take depending forms of interaction. in my case I would probably be at about 70% with my lack of freewill, because I generally talk out of my ass.
Then it gets taken to what you call "Genetic" yada yada. Genetics has a very small effect on what you can and cannot do(except like, walking, talking, etc., it essentially sets the stage for the broad limits, but does nothing to the details). If genetics was everything your brother would be the exact same occupation as you and have the same ideals and religion. The largest effect is, of course, other people. When you were six people at school pointed and laughed at you because you picked your nose, you no longer picked your nose because they laughed at you. Three years from now you may tell a small child not to pick his nose, and so "Free Will" is spread.
You have to realize, the single interaction between you and another is actually infinite reactions, because the person before you was influenced by a multitude of things, thusly shaping the person they are and the type of response they would deliver. IN fact, the very essence of their purpose of being in the same room to respond with you in the first place follows the same regard as their Response, it is effected by the way they have lived, and what they have encountered.
So essentially, the infinite possibilities of Free-Will are truly just the infinite Interactions that have occured before you. Knowing today you could donate to the poor and somehow give rise to the new Saddam, as per chaos theory. Complicated strings of events brought about by interaction and the "Freedom" of will.

Also, on the whole "God makes us do it" section of our programee, the idea that "God" is all of us must come into effect. In fact, the basis of the assumptions about God is laid out quite plainly, "Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient". Ergo, as being small subsidiary corporations of God himself, our will is actually his; as per the oneness(all life being interconnected with the universe yada yada) would seem to complicate, it really comes down to being the actual answer.
"We are something the whole universe is doing at the place you call the here and now, just as a wave is what the entire ocean is doing"

edit: I'm jaded. :(

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about concerning determinism and movement toward perfection. All of that is relative from my perspective, unless you feel like clarifying. :/

Misuse of the word pitch on my part. I didn't mean it to sound sarcastic. I am intending to check out the book because the subject interests me.

Oh, heh. I'm too eager to translate eveything to sarcasm here.

You got it all wrong helm, everything is about self-defeat. More to the point, it's about self-defeat to the point of perfect balance... in which energy comes from the defeat...

Evolution, quantam mechanics, life being "Created".. all prime examples.

Cpt: the determinist model is a rigid one. The whole idea of determinism is based on the presupposition that the world exists to, and is indeed headed towards a direction. Evolution towards something. A more efficient productive and safe model. This is why me torching myself is self-defeating with this in mind. One of the prime directives of instinct is self-preserverance. This is apparent in any living thing. Why would then a determinist system direct me towards disregarding that founding block of said determinist system?

This apparent flaw in the system is a roundabout way of suggesting that somewhere in there, choice has been made. The concept of choice is inherently tied to free will.



Khal: what you said made no sense the first time I read it. Should I go back and give it another go, or am I better off disregarding your input in this thread as sort of a half - joke quasi - baked pop science?

Ah. Well personally I think its all irrelavent what we see as being "created" or "destroyed". Thats all simply from a human viewpoint. In the end it all simplifies to matter, which is neither created nor destroyed, but rather in a state of constant entropy.

"productive" and 'safe" are all purely human ideas that hold no bearing on anything in actuallity except in relevance to how we percieve things.

It could most definitely be an interesting philosophy, but as with most complex philosophies there will be at best a multitude of anomolies, you setting yourself on fire being one of them.

Any theory of existance heading in a "direction" usually doesn't sit well with me because the directions are almost always based on abstract concepts. Chaos, perfection, etc., are all ideas which hold no true meaning in the context of these conversations.

Do what you like. I forget what i said, let me reread and ill try to fit it up style mcgee.

OKay, I'll try to take it from some exampliary mc mary's:

Buddha. You know him. All peaceful, all serene, against suffering and bad shit in general. He became the buddha because he "Meditated under a tree" for a logn time supposively, but the reason he did this was because:
He was born into a rich noble family, never had to see the indignities of life. Not even once. THen one day he took a stroll through the country, he saw dead people, hungry people, poor people.. it came as a shock. He never knew shit like that went on, or at least not to that extent, that is what inspired him.
So in a way, he became the person he was BECAUSE he saw the suffering, having never seen it he would never of had the inspiration to go chill out under a tree.
The same way could work for jesus christ.

As to the topic of working towards perfection, and no self-defeating actions... I find that to be contrary to the way things go. In fact, most people seem to act in their own interests regardless, and things turn out the other way often times.
Quantam mechanics is the idea that there are two COMPLETELY opposite particals, when one moves left the other moves right, when one goes up the other goes down, but when they move towards eachother they both come together, same when they move away. They are linked, they act without reaction to eachother. It's the bell theorem, if you sent a partical a billion miles away and left the other here, and reversed the polarity on the one here, both of them would have reversed polarity, at the same time, even though the other is a smillion miles away, but the end purpose of the particals is to sadly destroy eachother.
How is this working towards becoming bigger or better in anyway, perfection? It's self-defeating in it's own apparent nature.

Evolution is a result of friction between the enviroment and a species. Wooly mammoths, and even us, came at a result of horrible circumstances, the means to adjust were developed by these circumstances. In this instance, the fact that we evolved BECAUSE the situation was so horrible means one thing. HARD CIRCUMSTANCE=EVOLVE. A=B. You can't have Evolution without something to propel it.

Without Imperfection there is no perfection to work towards, thusly the idea of PERFECTION becomes relative, with evolution thrown into the mix it beccomes relative to the circumstance. As said before, US as a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL is not the only person going around interacting and changing ideals and ideas, so people and things change. Our enviroments change, often as a result of our own changes.
Also, status' of perfection with us seems to be conceptual, right now we are discussing because we believe each of us is right, while you and i are interacting, others are learning. Perhaps getting ideas of their own, perhaps ready to post some of their own. The form of the conversation could change by anothers opinion, you understand? You could play a guitar, i could play bass, someone else can sing, and another can play drums and it will make music. THe music would began to ebb and flow differently when each plays, if the others are as good or better, the music wll get better, if they are worse, the music will decline. But while it may decline, the one who has less skll may learn to become better, so the next time you play the music will be better, all according to different ideals and the way things flow. Certain changes working towards perfection, but the status of perfection will always be changing.

I dunno, Im not good at explaining shit i guess, ill try later when it's not 120 degrees outside.

see this is where you're wrong. safety and productivity are not abstract concepts that do not apply to reality. They are concepts man derived from studying the natural world, not concepts he's trying to force on the world. Instinct no matter how one chooses to interpret the reasons, seems to be working in a very base and unsophisticated way. Protection of self, protection of species. In that way, the determinist model seems to constantly try to refine and discard, refine and discard. There is a constant direction towards a more sophisticated but streamlined model based on survival and adaptation. Why? Beats me. Still why I could be in a position to undo my instinct seems to me like a good place to start as far as choice and free will goes.

Obviously the connotations of a term like safety are vast in the way human society operates, but I am not discussing this. I am using the term in a more direct way.



Khal: O think I'll have fries with that.

I think and learn so much more on these boards than I ever did or do at school. :(

Thats interesting Helm, but I can still see how a genetic mutation could answer your gap in that philosophy. A part of evolution is the destruction of individuals with self defeating tendencies. I'm sure there had to have been many instances of humans reasoning themselves into self destorying acts. Subsequently their self defeating habit would no longer exist.

By setting yourself on fire you have effectively prevented overall destruction. If you mate and your tendency for lighting oneself on fire was to eventually diffuse into our whole race, societies and communities would grow to accept self destruction through fire as natural and instinctual, leading to a lesser safety.

But because of sentience you can avoid your urge/reasoning and mate anyway without destroying yourself, so its up to you wether or not the trait will diffuse. I like studying the effects of sentience on evolution. there seems to be little or no data on it.

It's so hard to explain the necessity of evils and friction to someone. Don't take what I say without warranties, I give a infinite gaurantee. Every single force in the universe operates with friction, most people can't seem to conceptualize it. You have to use long vague descriptions to explain it, when all it comes down to is people expressing it in "Intelligent" words void of any poetry or meaning.

is what i said really that hard to understand?

Yeah, I believe in free will. I think I have to by definition, actually.

Just out of curiousity, why did you use the word "Deterministic" to explain yourself?
It seems kind of futile to use that word.. deterministic basically means "The past influencing our futures", can you argue that your decisions are not composed of elements of the past? Whenever you type you are using a language you had to learn, which is an element of the past.
The "Deterministic form of perfection" is relative, remember when you were a young kid and you wanted to be an astronaut, so you would work on pretending you were floating around in space? Or when you were 14 and you thought the most perfect thing in the World was to be one of the "Cool kids". Yet in all these circumstances there were kids who wanted to be other things, or who were other things. How did they get there? Do you still want to be an astronaut or one of the "Cool Kids"? This goes off on two angles, and both fulfill important parts of the topic. I'll discuss them later...
Why don't you walk around lighting yourself on fire? Because at a young age you learned that fire is hot, and fire hurts. Isn't this deterministic? If you did decide to light yourself on fire as some sort of appeasement to God or society, isn't it also still working towards the deterministic measure of being perfect, in this case fitting in with God or Society?
If you are talking on a more universal level, let me know.



edit: it cut off half my post :/

i wasn't trying to make my wish list, captain. i was trying to say that the scope of our knowledge is infinetly small compared to the actual amount of information out in the universe. Its kinda like being a molecule in a snow globe trying to find out how it looks from the outside.

It depends on how you quantify knowledge. To some we could very well know all that is worth knowing. Besides, I hate when people assume how little we know. We could very well know a signifigant fraction of gainable knowledge.

Bubba: mutation's not an answer because I could theoretically explain my reasoning to another person that before that had no urge to set himself on fire, and after our discussion, we could be convinced that there's merit to my position, thusly setting himself on fire as well. Is he genetically mutated then? If any man has such 'space' for mutation, then that's another manifestation of free will as well.

Besides that as for me being weeded out by evolution, I'm using 'setting oneself on fire' as an extreme example of anti-instinctual stance. But it's not the only example. I could just as well have said that as a method of one's anti-instinctual reasoning, he makes an urge to stop acting on emotional impulses (as is my case). This is not nec. self destructing, but it does stem from a strictly anti-instinctual argument, and again if we are simply part of this grand deterministic machine, I should not have been able to be in this position. So in effect, I could continue to exist but gradually step out of how humans interact and concieve their social structures and the latter would not neccessarily remove me. I deviate from the obvious path but still I exist. There are many other such examples where man simply is able to do that which doesn't seem to serve a deterministic purpose, or even goes again of the 'safer, productive' model. Take arts for example. Why the hell would men cultivate culture? It largely does not serve any deterministic purpose (although the societal structures we create around it are filled with pack mentality, alpha males and sexual persuing). There are other examples. There seems to be *choice* somewhere in there.

A person carries instinct and genetic memory. The genetic memory appears to be almost a sort of universal empathy. We carry inside us both the basic mandates of instinct, and thousands of years worth of human experience. In this sense it could be as in the above example, a posibility for me to 'teach' setting oneself on fire to the rest of humanity until it was embedded in our genetic memory. Genetic memory CAN become stronger than the basic instinctual directives (as in extreme examples of brainwashing) but that is a result of altered chemistry and the like whereas I am proposing action based on reason. Does it make sense for a man to be equipped in such a way mentally, that he can override his nature simply because he thought of a reason to? Again, choice...


Also yeah this board sometimes makes for very interesting discussion. We've actually had another one on free will where Spinster provided an interesting position that has since been reason for the latering of my own oppinion on the subject. It goes to show that the internet arguments CAN change you :O

No and I've probably been a little unfair in my comments but I just can't help but feel the positivists' anxiety when I read your poetic philosophizing. It just reads so open-ended and interpretative that I just can't help but want to set it on fire and laugh while it runs around screaming.

As to deterministic. It means more than just the past influencing our futures (to which I obviously agree). It means the past predetermines the future completely.

As to the social way in which you interpret deterministic perfection, it is largely irrelevant because the term is used in decidedly more base situations like day to day survival than juvenile aspiration and the wavering of such. In fact it is an argument for free will how man has so completely reinterpreted his way of life so that he can make of it so many different things and how 'success' isn't about staying alive for another day for some.

What about the immutable law of entropy? No matter how perfect a machine man may be, he/she is still bound by the laws of nature and, as such, will expire no matter the question of his will. There are, to this date, no perpetual machines. I recently read an article that discusses the finite limits on cell replication that eventually lead to our degeneration due to genetic material being lost after each subsequent replication. It seems that our expiration in not only inevitable but part of the initial design.

Laws of nature are described by scientific theories, and scientific theories get thrown out and replaced every now and then. Bottom line, no one has the absolute, detailed answer to anything scientific. They may come close, but there are always unknowns.

EDIT: Oh, and entropy always increases within a closed system. Humans are not closed systems, because we put things into our bodies (food, water, heat) and things come out. Otherwise, we couldn't progress beyond infancy, because entropy would just drag us down straight from there.

Free Will? Absolutely. No question.

I think too many proponents of determinism have blurred the line between actual determinism and influenced decision-making. An example:

A mugger pulls a gun on you and orders you to give him all your money. If you do, the determinist will claim that the decision was entirely out of your hands: you were constained by force. However, could one not also argue that you chose to give the mugger your money because you chose to protect your own life? The other option, though statistically unlikely, was just as real. You could have, in theory, chosen to endanger your life by refusing to give up the money. Being able to predict what someone will do is not the same as negating their freedom to choose a course of action. To me, it smacks of arrogance and a scientist's will to systematize and "control" his or her world.

This is not to say man isn't influenced by his instincts, passions, or past experiences. To assume that he isn't would be naive. However, determinism isn't about influence, it's about absolute cause and effect--it's fatalistic. Being influenced by one's instincts and being captive to them are two entirely different things.

If you do, the determinist will claim that the decision was entirely out of your hands: you were constained by force.

That's not what determinism is all about. Whatever your reasoning, your decision to forego your money was still a product of your mind's analysis of the situation.

determinism isn't about influence, it's about absolute cause and effect

Again, your notion is wrong.

I don't know what variety of determinism you subscribe to, Seth. It sounds like you just proved my case for free will.

If my decision to forego the money was the result of mental analysis and rumination...

...then when does the determinism come into play? The whole idea of free will is that I can reflect upon and choose a course of action.

It's hard to take someone seriously who has an Avatar like that, unfortunately you have free will.

Rigid determinism states that everything that happens is a result of physical interactions. In your scenario, the mugger pulls the gun, which causes certain chemical reactions in your brain, which trigger more reactions, which eventually lead to your decision. Basically, given a certain stimulus and a certain brain state, determinism says there is only one possible outcome - thus, no free will, because while it may have appeared that you made the decision, it was dictated by the chemicals in your brain.

I'm personally not a fan of determinism, but I'm not a fan of much theoretical science at all, so I don't have a counterpoint.

If the claims of the determinists are correct, we'd enter into a serious philosophical problem: responsibility. If you can't freely choose your actions, you cannot be held fully responsible for them. What then, would we do with our justice system?

On a side note, William James, the pragmatist, suggested we accept free will because it "works better." We feel comfortable with the idea that we have options and that people can be held responsible for what they do.

I agree with both of your points. I want to believe in free will, therefore I do, because it is convenient and intuitive. And if criminals are criminal because of their psychology, can they really help doing bad things and do they deserve to be punished?

I think the latter is a big reason why determinism doesn't have any practical applications (yet).

They have research going on that "Detects" who will be a serial killer and shit. I forget if it was just as simple as detection of sociopaths or if it was more complex, but if i remember correctly it may have had something to do with the genes and shit.

Genes alone won't answer the question. If you go with that, you'll have a scenario just as ludicrous as the plot to Minority Report:

"Hey Phil, this guy's got the killer gene! He could grow up to kill someone! THROW HIM IN THE SLAMMER!"

You're leaving out some crucial environmental causals, such as "Mommy Didn't Hug Me Enough".

First off, Minority Report didn't have anything to do with Genes, minority report was the movie with the crackbabies who could see the future.
Secondly, believe it or not, not all science is going to remain the same forever. I read this in an article somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it had to do with certain genes that were likely to make people more physically aggressive.
Not everybody in a "Mommy didn't hug me enough" situation will grow up and be a Serial Killer.
That was the point of it. Detect who has the genes that could make them capable of it, then make sure they get alot of hugs.

I didn't say "a plot EXACTLY like Minority Report, I said a situation that is just as ludicrous. This is a physical way of paraphrasing. The paraphrase comes into effect bascially because whether through genes or psychic albinoes, you're determining guilt before anything has even physically happened.

Agreed, but it'll take quite some time for people to accept it.

Having testosterone also predisposes someone to being aggressive. I don't mean having testosterone at all, but large amounts of it. One of the symptoms of steroid abuse (which the key ingredient is...you guessed it, testosterone) is shortened temper. Most passion killings also result from shortened temper. But then again, walking in on your wife having sex with another man would shorten your fuse significantly, I'd think.

Just as everyone who has the Serial Killer Gene won't necessarily become a serial killer. I'd assume the best way to assuage that is the bring the child up with strong morals.

Yea, I agree with that part.

You know, I forgot to mention an important factor inourlittle discussion here.

On premise of God's Omniscient nature, and how it could effect our freewill.
You see.
Omniscience is not a state of knowing the future.
It's a state of knowing all possible futures that could arise from ALL possible decisions made by all possible people. It's also knowing every single bit of knowledge out there..
COntrary to popular belief, knowledge includes the truth AND the lies, so it is truly an infinite amount of knowledge.

Yeah but god is a fag.

That's why I always save my lucky cigarettes...

THIS THREAD GAVE ME A HEADACHE >:

Seriously, though, I think there is a predetermined fate for everyone, but like they said in The Matrix and crap, it only takes you so far, and the rest is up to you, your decisions, and your free will.

Your post was stupid in so many ways it's not even funny.

That reminded me of "this":

He Jankied my philisophical composition.

"A trickery, a vast dilusional paradox. If everything is then how is nothing not everything? Nothingness consumes similarly to existance: existing for nothing. Conceptually infinite, truly? A single moment becomes the truth even as a fallacy, how can the dilusioned be dilusioned? A dilusion of ilusion real to the eyes of the deluded. So it is, so it will be. So it is nothing. Allow not for not, paradox again. Inspired by something unseen. Divinity from within. Collapsing to rebuild. Strive to be purity, greed is manifest. Deceifer what visions are had. A lie, a truth and a fact: False is just as true. Just as decrepid as another. All are nothing. For when everything is nothing and nothing is everything, truly the truth is spoken. Truth is a lie, false is real when truth is unseen while lies influence reality, always. Similar to the components of self.
From the skies comes only lies and deceit, to structure a part of the sky is to perish a disease within. Concubines unite borne again. Split in two is the unity more whole? When it's billions the clouds become clouds and the rain becomes rain, but the acid is still united. Unity is Insanity. Difference and war; bitter feelings of a deraved. Lies? Then why produce what lies within. Purpose is the sake to be had, words of thought, such irony when words merely destroy what thought we have. A production produced for nothing, producing without purpose. Here then we are. A process of disease perishing within the skies. Color it blank. I feel the skies should think the same, but then paradox. Wondering such is why perile is manifest. If skies were to be my art then only perile would manifest. Decisions of poor report only mean, but I approach the skies in a fury. For as spoken, the fortunate disease corrupts thankfully from within. Sheepish skies uniting, sheepish skies sheparding. The skies are on fire, consumed by my taste. Flavored tasteless."

JANKIED

I just thought I'd bring this back up because a few days ago I finished reading The Illusion of Conscious Will. What I got out of it is that the notion of free will is so asinine that no self-respecting psychological theory will embrace it. woo.

I agree.

Freewill is based on too many free variables to be any particular thing.

But then, freewill becomes the definition of variables.

It's intristic.