4 ms·

Let me rephrase your question: Is there a free will? To me, determinism [1] is more plausible than free will. Events are always caused by prior events and in t

by id 12y ago

Let me rephrase your question: Is there a free will? To me, determinism [1] is more plausible than free will. Events are always caused by prior events and in the end we have no control over our genetics and the conditions we were born into. Of course I could be wrong and there is a realistic chance we will never find out. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

logicchains 12y ago
It depends on how you define free will. If you define it as being 100% the cause of an action, that's impossible. There are two possible causes for an action: either you caused it, or something external caused it. If taking action X at time T is entirely the result of your choice, why did you choose it? Because of whatever influences made you the person you are at time T. If these influences were external, by the definition in question your action wasn't entirely free will, as its root cause could be traced back to external influences. This means the person you were at time T-1 would have to be 100% responsible for the person you are at time T in order for you to be 100% responsible for taking action X at time T. The same also implies that the person you were at time T-2 would have to have been the cause of who you were at T-1, and so on recursively. Trace that far backwards enough, and you get to the point where in order for you to be entirely the cause of your actions at time T, the person you were at time Tb would have to have been the cause of who you were at time Tb+1, where Tb is the time you were still a baby and incapable of conscious thought. This is not possible, as a baby doesn't 'make decisions' in the conscious sense, it acts purely from the impulses condition by its genes and whatnot. Thus if you chase the causal chain far back enough in time, you see there's always an external root cause for an action.
- jqm 12y ago
  "Thus if you chase the causal chain far back enough in time, you see there's always an external root cause for an action." I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I agree at least 99%. I believe humans have the possibility of free will. But it in practice it's very rare and most of the time is exactly what you state. See G.I. Gurdjieff for more on this. Probable crank, conman, and (I believe) probably correct on at least this point. He states (rather his pupil Ouspensky states from his teachings), that we have the potential to develop free will, but it is not a native attribute, and most of the time we simply respond to stimuli and conditioning. I tend to agree.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    Interesting. His theory reminds me of something called the Theory of Positive Disintegration[1], a theory of personality in which only through active reflection and self-confrontation can people develop a conscious personality that's not just the result of biological and social pressures. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration
- bnjms 12y ago
  This was the conclusion I came to when I first considered the question. I later decided it was a moot point. The question "is there free will" generally assumes or implies to most people, I think, that if there is not free will there is no matter in day to day choices. But that's silly because as far as I can see determinism applies to systems and from within the system our will is indistinguishable from free will. (Not sure how to word the leap here.) And believing in not free will, if it causes paralysis, results in less desirable deterministic outcomes anyway. So it's best for most people to assume free will.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    I think often free will is a fuzzy concept people use to represent some kind of feeling/function/mode/whatever that exists in the psyche. As in, there's some kind of positive feeling associated with being in control, and when people speak of free will they don't necessarily have a clearly defined concept in mind, rather are speaking in reference to that feeling. I'm not sure I expressed myself so clearly there. What I mean is that, the concept of free will disbelief in which is associated with paralysis is distinct from the philosophical/logical concept, but these two are often conflated. The logical understanding of free will not existing can actually be emotionally liberating; it acts as a balm against hatred and whatnot for instance, as it's difficult to hate someone when you see their actions as merely following a mechanistic, predetermined path. This kind of thing was an important concept in Spinoza's Ethics (Spinoza famously denied free will), and I believe also played a role in Buddha's teachings.
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    This is existentialism.
- id 12y ago
  Of course there are external causes. Events are caused by your decisions and external causes. Very often external causes have more influence and they can also influence your future behaviour. When I said there is no free will, I meant that you can't influence your own decisions. In fact, according to this theory, "you" is just a product of your mind. Your brain just follows the law of physics and chemistry. Decisions are made by your synapses and are the result of your past experiences, genetics, hormones, logic, emotions and surroundings. So if there would be an all-knowing being that knows the exact state of the universe and how things interact, it could calculate the future. I don't define free will as being 100% the cause of an action. I would define it as the "freedom to do otherwise in the same circumstances". Bear in mind that this is just a theory. But even if it's wrong, the influence we have over our life might be smaller than we tend to think.
taway98765 12y ago
1) Genes do play a role but it's still an ongoing research on the real impact they have. The current upper estimate for general intelligence is around 7-10%[1] which leaves the median of the population unaffected(meaning, 1 in 10k people born in poverty may be able to escape a slam and be successful(with all the grey area this word entails) because if this random boost - but the median is what we should focus on when designing our social/educational system .. sooo 2) We're all different* in a way but its primarily our environment that stimulates our intellect. From early age - music, lego/toys boosting creativity, conversations promoting curiosity about the world around .. educated parents(with enough free time and financial/social security[2]) and good schools - mozart would not write a single note had he been born in a poor lumberjacks family(he might have been a pina always playing tunes with some wood laying around - but even this is probably not true since he wouldn't have been exposed to music during his early life(~3-5y) meaning his brain wouldn't wire itself sufficiently to enjoy music as much as to become suff. motivated to go through the hassle/it would be difficult to "grow" a reward cycle for this particular activity; and even if - even if he had understanding parents etc - if they couldn't afford to get him a music instrument/send him to music school he'd probably end up as a lumberjack anyway) It's time to get our heads out of our as*s, throw away the sociopathic narcissism/individualism that is so blatantly being promoted these days and look at the reality: You can't really boost your egos looking from above on all the people living in poverty/homeless/lower class or those who just "didn't make it" - because you haven't had the same starting position( >1) ). It would be OK to feel "superior" - looking at your car-park/property list - and despise people below(well not really but lets forget about the implications for now) - if everyone would have the same opportunities as you had(pre-school - should filter out bad parenting as well - /school/uni/entry capital/enough social and financial security to be able to take the same risks ..). In such a world - with a working education system and social safety net - there would still be "losers", a lazy good-for-nothing percentage/large leisure-crowd but if one of them decided that - after 10y of doing nothing, with friends all making contributions to medicine/science/writing novels/doing art he'd want to do something with his life too(which is the default for most people - till our current education system won't beat this out of your head) - he should have an opportunity to start school/business/project without taking 2 jobs and putting his family on an emergency budget .. BTW The Original Position by John Rawls is a good thought experiment for this discussion[3]

by id 12y ago

logicchains 12y ago

It depends on how you define free will. If you define it as being 100% the cause of an action, that's impossible. There are two possible causes for an action: either you caused it, or something external caused it. If taking action X at time T is entirely the result of your choice, why did you choose it? Because of whatever influences made you the person you are at time T. If these influences were external, by the definition in question your action wasn't entirely free will, as its root cause could be traced back to external influences. This means the person you were at time T-1 would have to be 100% responsible for the person you are at time T in order for you to be 100% responsible for taking action X at time T. The same also implies that the person you were at time T-2 would have to have been the cause of who you were at T-1, and so on recursively. Trace that far backwards enough, and you get to the point where in order for you to be entirely the cause of your actions at time T, the person you were at time Tb would have to have been the cause of who you were at time Tb+1, where Tb is the time you were still a baby and incapable of conscious thought. This is not possible, as a baby doesn't 'make decisions' in the conscious sense, it acts purely from the impulses condition by its genes and whatnot. Thus if you chase the causal chain far back enough in time, you see there's always an external root cause for an action.

jqm 12y ago
"Thus if you chase the causal chain far back enough in time, you see there's always an external root cause for an action." I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I agree at least 99%. I believe humans have the possibility of free will. But it in practice it's very rare and most of the time is exactly what you state. See G.I. Gurdjieff for more on this. Probable crank, conman, and (I believe) probably correct on at least this point. He states (rather his pupil Ouspensky states from his teachings), that we have the potential to develop free will, but it is not a native attribute, and most of the time we simply respond to stimuli and conditioning. I tend to agree.
- logicchains 12y ago
  Interesting. His theory reminds me of something called the Theory of Positive Disintegration[1], a theory of personality in which only through active reflection and self-confrontation can people develop a conscious personality that's not just the result of biological and social pressures. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration
bnjms 12y ago
This was the conclusion I came to when I first considered the question. I later decided it was a moot point. The question "is there free will" generally assumes or implies to most people, I think, that if there is not free will there is no matter in day to day choices. But that's silly because as far as I can see determinism applies to systems and from within the system our will is indistinguishable from free will. (Not sure how to word the leap here.) And believing in not free will, if it causes paralysis, results in less desirable deterministic outcomes anyway. So it's best for most people to assume free will.
- logicchains 12y ago
  I think often free will is a fuzzy concept people use to represent some kind of feeling/function/mode/whatever that exists in the psyche. As in, there's some kind of positive feeling associated with being in control, and when people speak of free will they don't necessarily have a clearly defined concept in mind, rather are speaking in reference to that feeling. I'm not sure I expressed myself so clearly there. What I mean is that, the concept of free will disbelief in which is associated with paralysis is distinct from the philosophical/logical concept, but these two are often conflated. The logical understanding of free will not existing can actually be emotionally liberating; it acts as a balm against hatred and whatnot for instance, as it's difficult to hate someone when you see their actions as merely following a mechanistic, predetermined path. This kind of thing was an important concept in Spinoza's Ethics (Spinoza famously denied free will), and I believe also played a role in Buddha's teachings.
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  This is existentialism.
id 12y ago
Of course there are external causes. Events are caused by your decisions and external causes. Very often external causes have more influence and they can also influence your future behaviour. When I said there is no free will, I meant that you can't influence your own decisions. In fact, according to this theory, "you" is just a product of your mind. Your brain just follows the law of physics and chemistry. Decisions are made by your synapses and are the result of your past experiences, genetics, hormones, logic, emotions and surroundings. So if there would be an all-knowing being that knows the exact state of the universe and how things interact, it could calculate the future. I don't define free will as being 100% the cause of an action. I would define it as the "freedom to do otherwise in the same circumstances". Bear in mind that this is just a theory. But even if it's wrong, the influence we have over our life might be smaller than we tend to think.

taway98765 12y ago

1) Genes do play a role but it's still an ongoing research on the real impact they have. The current upper estimate for general intelligence is around 7-10%[1] which leaves the median of the population unaffected(meaning, 1 in 10k people born in poverty may be able to escape a slam and be successful(with all the grey area this word entails) because if this random boost - but the median is what we should focus on when designing our social/educational system .. sooo 2) We're all different* in a way but its primarily our environment that stimulates our intellect. From early age - music, lego/toys boosting creativity, conversations promoting curiosity about the world around .. educated parents(with enough free time and financial/social security[2]) and good schools - mozart would not write a single note had he been born in a poor lumberjacks family(he might have been a pina always playing tunes with some wood laying around - but even this is probably not true since he wouldn't have been exposed to music during his early life(~3-5y) meaning his brain wouldn't wire itself sufficiently to enjoy music as much as to become suff. motivated to go through the hassle/it would be difficult to "grow" a reward cycle for this particular activity; and even if - even if he had understanding parents etc - if they couldn't afford to get him a music instrument/send him to music school he'd probably end up as a lumberjack anyway) It's time to get our heads out of our as*s, throw away the sociopathic narcissism/individualism that is so blatantly being promoted these days and look at the reality: You can't really boost your egos looking from above on all the people living in poverty/homeless/lower class or those who just "didn't make it" - because you haven't had the same starting position( >1) ). It would be OK to feel "superior" - looking at your car-park/property list - and despise people below(well not really but lets forget about the implications for now) - if everyone would have the same opportunities as you had(pre-school - should filter out bad parenting as well - /school/uni/entry capital/enough social and financial security to be able to take the same risks ..). In such a world - with a working education system and social safety net - there would still be "losers", a lazy good-for-nothing percentage/large leisure-crowd but if one of them decided that - after 10y of doing nothing, with friends all making contributions to medicine/science/writing novels/doing art he'd want to do something with his life too(which is the default for most people - till our current education system won't beat this out of your head) - he should have an opportunity to start school/business/project without taking 2 jobs and putting his family on an emergency budget .. BTW The Original Position by John Rawls is a good thought experiment for this discussion[3]