Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 01:32 AM        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.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 01:39 AM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 01:59 AM       
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.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Skulhedface Skulhedface is offline
Asspunch McGruf
Skulhedface's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: !GNODAB
Skulhedface is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 04:26 AM       
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?)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
TeMeTNoScE TeMeTNoScE is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
TeMeTNoScE is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 05:16 AM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
pjalne pjalne is offline
Mocker
pjalne's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Norway
pjalne is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 05:30 AM       
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.
__________________
Encyclopedia Obscura
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Dole Dole is offline
Mocker
Dole's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brighton & Motherfucking Hove
Dole is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 06:44 AM       
Free Willy 2 was a major dissapointment.
__________________
I don't get it. I mean, why did they fuck with the formula? Where are the car songs? There's only one song about surfing and it's a downer!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
executioneer executioneer is offline
OH GOD
executioneer's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2001
executioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contest
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 06:59 AM       


-willie
__________________
[COLOR=purple][COLOR=Magenta]SHAME ON A [COLOR=Pink]NIGGA WHO TRY TO RUN [/COLOR][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGI6mhfJyA"]GAME[/URL] ON A NIGGA[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 11:46 AM       
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.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 02:58 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
I'd say that philosophy has no business in this discussion.


This entire discussion is philosophy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 03:04 PM       
Not if all of our decisions can be rationalized by scientific compulsion. Where is there room to throw in philosophy?
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #12  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 03:09 PM       
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.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Sep 10th, 2003, 03:09 PM       
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!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 10:47 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
Not if all of our decisions can be rationalized by scientific compulsion. Where is there room to throw in philosophy?
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.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
pjalne pjalne is offline
Mocker
pjalne's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Norway
pjalne is probably a spambot
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 10:49 AM       
SEPTEMBER 11 2003: NEVER FORGET.

THIS WAS THE DAY KELLY SAID SOMETHING THAT WASN'T COMPLETE SHIT.
__________________
Encyclopedia Obscura
Reply With Quote
  #16  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 10:52 AM       
I do that every now and then.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 07:22 PM       
freewill=variablequantammechanics
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #18  
ScruU2wice ScruU2wice is offline
Mocker
ScruU2wice's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: thursday
ScruU2wice is probably a spambot
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 08:25 PM       
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...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 08:40 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Sep 11th, 2003, 08:59 PM       
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?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #21  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 12th, 2003, 12:28 PM       
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!
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Sep 12th, 2003, 03:11 PM       
Can't forget the curvatures and holes, though, nor the curvatures on the holes.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Sep 12th, 2003, 06:55 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Sep 12th, 2003, 07:17 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Sep 12th, 2003, 07:54 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.