I'm sick of these political topics with the same old talking points you can hear from lots of places and where the position of a person is predictable. They aren't the point of this forum anyway.]
Do you believe in free will, and how do you define it?
I say that it doesn't really exist in a traditional sense because humans are products of genetics and environment. Any actions they take and beliefs they have are related to those things, so not only is it not free will in a certain sense, but it's not particularly desirable, because in order to do something that isn't influenced by your genetics and environment you'd be... randomly doing nonsense.
Does this mean that everything is predetermined? I would guess yes, except that I've heard it said that some fields of quantum theory support the idea of a non-deterministic universe. However, I am not familiar with these fields or their credibility.
I believe in free will, sort of, but not really. You cannot do something un-Vector-like, and I cannot do something un-Dirk like.
If there is an omniscient god, then he can predict everything because he knows the location, type, trajectory and speed of every particle in the universe.
Free will is good. But too much freedom leads to chaos. Take having a dog. You let him walk around the house and at the end of the day some of you put it outside so it doesn't disturb you while you sleep. If you trust your dog and give it complete freedom and not tie it up, it can dig a hole under the fence in your yard and escape. Or the dog can climb over the fence. The dog can go to other people's yards and tear up your garbage, or bite someone. Too much freedom or freewill leads to chaos.
Personally, I believe we have free will, as in the freedom to attempt to do anything we wish to - although these attempts may fail due to physical constraints or opposing factors. My notion of free will is one which is completely free, as in there is no inherent destiny, or "things which must be". However, scientific principles still apply to objects without free will - books don't choose whether they move towards the lowest energy state possible or not (or, at least, I don't believe they do) - and so in the sense that the Sun will cease to be in around 5 billion years or whatever, that is true unless some drastic change of circumstance occurs.
However, there are consequences for actions. While I am free to attempt to jump of a cliff without any aid to keep myself from plummeting to the ground below, I anticipate that such an action would be the last I would take, and so would choose not to (unless other alternatives seemed worse). This, I believe, keeps our freedom from causing complete chaos - there are various things to suggest advantages to being trustworthy, in spite of some potential gains from screwing people over - as well as socially imposed laws which are enforced appropriately. Also, our choices will generally stem from our experiences and beliefs, and hence will be to some degree predictable. But I do believe that we have the fundamental ability to act how we choose to act, just that we generally choose to act in certain ways.
You can chose a ready guide in some celestial voice...
You can chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can chose from phantom fears or kindness that can kill...
I will chose a path that's clear. I will chose free will!
I believe in free will. Why do you think there's so many problems in the world?
Because everything could be a prescripted book scribed for God's benefit to laugh at all the problems we create?
Anyway, I'm not really sure. I'd like for us to definitively all have free will, but who knows. We're maybe just a large cosmic joke. Saying we don't have free will would cause all sorts of problems though:- criminals would say it isn't their fault as they never had a choice in performing their actions. :O
How problematic.
Obviously, free will is merely an illusion that nobody in the universe is possessed of, except, of course, for myself.
This is because the entire universe is nothing more than a product of my subconscious mind created for my own entertainment and enlightenment, and every "object" within it is nothing more than a figment of my overactive imagination, working towards my own ends. As such, no being in the universe is truly 'free' to act as they choose, as they have no minds other than the programming provided by my own.
Even I, of course, am not free from this, as each and every situation I find myself in is tailor-made for my own consciousness, and any actions I take will be affected because of this. In the end, however, free will is a moot point, as the only actions in the entire universe that matter are the ones I take, and the method of my arrival at these actions doesn't matter one iota.
Quote:
My notion of free will is one which is completely free, as in there is no inherent destiny, or "things which must be". However, scientific principles still apply to objects without free will - books don't choose whether they move towards the lowest energy state possible or not (or, at least, I don't believe they do)
How different are the human and the book? They have properties that disctate their actions. A computer isn't considered to have free will because it's a product of its components, but so is the human.
I draw the line in terms of where I consider the action to have originated. With the book (or the computer), it is based in causation, and is purely physical. With humans, and to my mind several other animals, it is based in reason - however much it is in reaction to other factors around them.
I do think there are some actions we take which are based in causation - the blink reflex, for example - but for most actions we take, we do so for a given reason, to attempt to bring about some future we wish to occur. However, this is also a view based on the belief that mind does not only equate to brain, or completely physical components. Granted, a bit of an unfashionable view, but I consider it more likely than the alternative.
However, you may comfort yourself thusly: While I believe you to have the freedom to choose what you believe, you can think of me as pre-determined to be deluded 
But wouldn't everything that's part of the mind, whether it's defined entirely by brain or not, be part of the product that results in human action or thought? So add in a soul or whatever else somebody believes in. That's still a deterministic factor (or else there wouldn't be a will at all). The idea that a person has the ability to choose suggests that their choices both are determined and determine other things, based on the properties of the person. But since the person doesn't choose what they are, it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it?
Quote:
But wouldn't everything that's part of the mind, whether it's defined entirely by brain or not, be part of the product that results in human action or thought? So add in a soul or whatever else somebody believes in. That's still a deterministic factor (or else there wouldn't be a will at all). The idea that a person has the ability to choose suggests that their choices both are determined and determine other things, based on the properties of the person. But since the person doesn't choose what they are, it's kind of a catch 22 isn't it?
Interesting approach. I'm not entirely sure why you claim that the idea that a person has the ability to choose suggests that their choices are determined and determine other things, based on the properties of the person. It is a fact that, if people have free will, then people have to make choices - even if it is the case that they passively choose - and so in that sense choices are determined. However, it is the decision, or the choice that they make, which determines other things.
You're arguing from the view that it is our personality which determines what choices we make, but I would suggest it is more the case that our choices determine who we are. Several philosophers have suggested that we have a notion of who we want to be, and the concept that we have beliefs about how we wish to act is a very old one, but I would argue that we choose what kind of ideals we wish to follow, and hence who we would like to be, and then follow that up through acting how we believe we should act according to the beliefs we have chosen for ourselves. I guess this is where I disagree with your catch-22 argument - that we don't choose who we are - since I believe we are constantly inventing ourselves, and through our choices we determine who we are.
Free will is just a choice presented to us in every circumstance. Through our genetic code some actions we take are pre-programed, however that doesnt mean we can't deviate from them. Free will is something we have but use only when we rebel againsed things we dont agree with. Not everything has the same sense of free will as we do, because not everything is as advanced as we are. So many things come into play when initiating a decision to either follow a pattern or deviate from it for personal reasons, all of those reasons are ever changing due to the human mind mixing with hormones and other stuff that exists in our body. Free will is an option, so while we have it, we only choose to use it when things dont go how we like.
Quote:
I'm not entirely sure why you claim that the idea that a person has the ability to choose suggests that their choices are determined and determine other things, based on the properties of the person. It is a fact that, if people have free will, then people have to make choices - even if it is the case that they passively choose - and so in that sense choices are determined.
Quote:
You're arguing from the view that it is our personality which determines what choices we make, but I would suggest it is more the case that our choices determine who we are.
Quote:
I guess this is where I disagree with your catch-22 argument - that we don't choose who we are - since I believe we are constantly inventing ourselves, and through our choices we determine who we are.
Well, if a person makes a choice, what exactly is going on? Their mind is building decisions based on input and who they are, which is a sum of nature and environment. The existence of choice suggests a chooser, and the chooser must have certain properties in order to exist. People redefine themselves, but those choices must come from a chooser, too. It's sort of a chicken and an egg thing, except with an easy answer. There must be some base identity of a person before a choice can be made, so it must come first. Since the identity was not created by a choice before the first choice it made, every continuing aspect of that identity must be predetermined.
So people have free will in the sense that they choose, but who exactly is this "they?" It is who the people are. At some point very early in development they were defined in a way that did not include choice, and then developed by environment that is both chosen and not chosen.
Or what Dirk said.
Quote:
I believe in free will, sort of, but not really. You cannot do something un-Vector-like, and I cannot do something un-Dirk like.
If there is an omniscient god, then he can predict everything because he knows the location, type, trajectory and speed of every particle in the universe.
So if the universe is deterministic (and if it's not, that doesn't sound like free will either), people must be too.
Quote:
criminals would say it isn't their fault as they never had a choice in performing their actions. :O
Which I would agree with, EXCEPT, that in essence, it is they (thier identity) who chose to do what they did. They didn't choose to be the person who would do such a thing.
BTW, because of this opinion, I consider the whole question of whether homosexuality/criminality/paedophilia is genetic to be beside the point except for scientific curiosity (my bias for nurture will argue that it is not) because it's not chosen either way. And besides that, in the case of homosexuality, whether it's chosen should be irrelevant to the rights afforded to a person anyway. The whole question is just political.
Your argument follows sound logic, but I would contend the assertion that there must be a personality present before a choice can be made. While I quite happily agree with Dirk that he cannot do anything un-Dirk-like, and similar for other people, I do not believe that is because there is some clear, essential property that makes Dirk "Dirk", or makes his behaviour distinctly "Dirk-like". Instead, I claim that, whatever he chooses to do, that is what makes him who he is.
I don't view personality as a set group of traits that an individual adheres to. Instead, it is a collection of trends others, or the individual themself, have noticed in what the that individual chooses to do. Someone is not a coward because of who they are, but because they consistently choose not to fight, but to run away/surrender/otherwise avoid confrontation. We make choices based on beliefs, experience and other such considerations, yes. But that does not mean that we are fixed by our beliefs, experience, or other factors into doing a given thing. We are still free to choose to do something we believe to be wrong, or unlikely to succeed, or against something we believe to be true. An atheist can still pray, even if he does not expect it to be profitable.
So how do the first choices get made? I would guess there's a fair amount of instinct built in which guides early choices, but in general looking at babies and infants, they tend to be protected so much that choices have little impact, but they are gaining experience and learning about the world at a fast rate - experience and information which I imagine builds up some traits on which they can rely (if in danger, cry for attention/run to parent, etc.).
However, as I said in my original post, I believe we tend to just stick with what we know most of the time, rather than take actions which seem silly or wrong to us. In that sense, yes we are guided by our personality/experience/whatever other external or internal factors you want to appeal to. However, I believe that it does not mean that we are determined by this, just that we consistently choose to act in that fashion.
I believe people have an inherit basis of acting; in short what your genetics give you, but that none of that is altogether binding. (Physical attributes aside, for obvious reasons) In other words, I believe that a person can have homicidal tendencies based on their parents' genetics, or whatever, but nothing in that will inheritively cause him to kill somebody without his, for lack of better terms, 'consent.'
Anyway. Carry on.
~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper
People will do as they please. No one can stop that. No one's path is predetermined, IMO. The human will is unstoppable. I personally belive that the most powerful weapon is not an atomic bomb but the use of the human will.
If one's will is powerful enough, one can do anything including jumping from here to the moon. But if they can't, then their will is not strong enough. Thank you.
P.S.
If God really decided what we would do for 3000 or so years, then he must be really bored.
Guys I wish my subconscious mind would imagine me up a universe in which you all acknowledge that I am the sole extant being in all of the 'universe' and accept that you have no free will or existence.
Quote:
Guys I wish my subconscious mind would imagine me up a universe in which you all acknowledge that I am the sole extant being in all of the 'universe' and accept that you have no free will or existence.
I was being serious you know. I mean that the will has the power to do anything it so chooses. I believe it is referred to as The will to power. I may be wrong in that context however.
Quote:
I don't view personality as a set group of traits that an individual adheres to. Instead, it is a collection of trends others, or the individual themself, have noticed in what the that individual chooses to do. Someone is not a coward because of who they are, but because they consistently choose not to fight, but to run away/surrender/otherwise avoid confrontation.
Such personality is subjective. I see personality as the sum of properties of the individual. Trends only exist as products of personality, and somebody has to be choosing those behaviors. The existence of a somebody means an object with properties.
Quote:
So how do the first choices get made? I would guess there's a fair amount of instinct built in which guides early choices, but in general looking at babies and infants, they tend to be protected so much that choices have little impact, but they are gaining experience and learning about the world at a fast rate - experience and information which I imagine builds up some traits on which they can rely (if in danger, cry for attention/run to parent, etc.).
Which is ascribed.
Quote:
However, I believe that it does not mean that we are determined by this, just that we consistently choose to act in that fashion.
But it's not really a belief that can be supported by logic, because, even when a person does something unexpected, they must have chosen to do so, or have a brain stimulation reason. (I'm repying to you because you're doing the most supporting of your position rather than just saying it's true.)
To try to analyze this, free will is an oxymoron because the existence of a will proves the existence of a person to use that will. The person, like every object or abstract concept, must have properties that define it. Without properties will would be pointless. If free will isn't an oxymoron, then people wouldn't have the ability to choose. A ball rolls on a slope relative to a strong source of gravity or other forces, and I have posted this. One function is more undertood and explainable than the other.
Quote:
To try to analyze this, free will is an oxymoron because the existence of a will proves the existence of a person to use that will. The person, like every object or abstract concept, must have properties that define it. Without properties will would be pointless. If free will isn't an oxymoron, then people wouldn't have the ability to choose. A ball rolls on a slope relative to a strong source of gravity or other forces, and I have posted this. One function is more undertood and explainable than the other.
The idea that people, like all objects, have properties is not something I would dispute. After all, it seems reasonably evident that people have mass, shape, form, and other similar features. However, I would not consider personality traits as properties of that being - probably the point of contention between us, and not something likely to be resolved. While physiologically there are certain common traits which could be reflected by personality, such as "smiles when happy" tends to suggest that someone who finds pleasure in much of life, and so has a "happy" personality, will be obvious by them smiling a lot, I do not believe that the physiological change is more than a default. If you are happy, although you are physiologically encouraged to smile, you can choose not to if you wish (just as you can stifle sneezes, open your eyes under water, not flinch when an object is threatened to be thrown at you, albeit often requiring a certain amount of practice and awareness of self). Equally, when not happy you can choose to smile anyway.
In that sense, we have the ability to overcome what would otherwise be a natural reaction. That, for me, is evidence of the existence of free will, the ability to choose to do otherwise, and so on. You claim that this is a belief that cannot be supported by logic. I suggest that this belief is as supported by logic as most arguments are - if you accept the premise (we possess the ability to choose our actions), the conclusion follows (we have free will) - however, being logically sound does not prove that such a thing is true, only that if the premises are correct then the conclusion is also correct, assuming we are correct in viewing the universe as logical. As Kirkegaard said, "Faith begins where reason leaves off", and in this case, belief goes beyond what can be shown purely by logic.
I've long concluded that I do not believe that science can explain the universe entirely, simply because science makes no allowance for free will - it studies how effects are brought about by causes, and seeks repeatability to strengthen claims of understanding. Hence I tend to reject an overly-scientific model of the human mind - physiological effects can be reasonably modelled by science due to the causation inherent to that system (if adrenaline is introduced to our bloodstream, certain effects occur) but there is, I believe, an additional factor in the control of our bodies that is non-causal, but instead generally based on reasons/beliefs. However, this comes from my fundamental belief that we have free will, and so can be rejected as a position through not accepting that we have free will.
