3 ms·

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: e

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.

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.