By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Is free will a myth?

Eagle367 on 25 June 2016

Let me throw this into the mix.
What if our universe is a complex simulation run by some other being or beings. Then whatever illusions we have are all wrong since we are not even real let alone physical and are only a form of data with the basic unit being the smallest particle and that particle just being a code. In that argument our free will becomes zero and everything in this universe becomes not random and is leading up to something. What if we are like an animated TV show that beings are watching to make fun of our idiocy and the stupidity man kind does on this planet? The point being a number of scenarios could be true but you cannot disprove them you just believe you are in the right and you believe because you don't know and have proof and that believe could again be predetermined or your own choice and free will. If free will is not real then the chaos theory is applied to the universe and with enough data you could see a 100 years from now but if free will is real then the humans become an anomaly and perhaps that is what life is. It is an anomaly to the creation that is the univweae



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
KiigelHeart on 25 June 2016
Eagle367 said:
If free will is not real then the chaos theory is applied to the universe and with enough data you could see a 100 years from now but if free will is real then the humans become an anomaly and perhaps that is what life is. It is an anomaly to the creation that is the univweae

Maybe life and especially conciousness are an anomaly. What is conciousness and how did it come to be, is there a specific scientific explanation? Chemical reactions and electrical stimuls.. That's not much imo. What if one day humen or another beings evolve and reach a higher level of conciousness or something we can't even imagine with our brain capacity?



WolfpackN64 on 25 June 2016
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The point made was that people are in many ways determined, but that there is always an element of free wil.

It's the sociological standpoint. I might have been a bit arrogant in saying it's a fact. Scientifically there is still a debate of course. But for the sake of our functioning society, free will must be accepted.

Would be surprise about that fact. Free Will is neither proven nor disproven. It's difficult because there isn't even a definition of it :) All you can do is having a philosphycal debate about it and agree with the guy who makes according to you the best arguments.

Theists have also to accept free will. But it doesn't make it more real.

Still, I would like to know what kind of free will defintion you accept or rather your stance on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will 

I would accept compatibilism.

I am a Marxist and therefore a materialist. Being a materialist I think people are at least partially determinined by their initial economic sircumstance and the surcumstance of their upbringing. Economical sircumstance being the foundation of any society, also determines culture, religion, philosophy. We don't live in a vacuüm and these things do influence us and mold us.

But I believe fiercly in the possibility for people to determine to a large degree their own path. For most of my life, I have been a centre-left Christian monarchist. But various events in Europe had made me doubt my way of thinking. From there I could probably go any way, as I think many people's beliefs have been challenged in the wake of the 2008 crisis. I have read Marx and my whole way of thinking, of structuring the world has changed. It's an entirely different perspective then how I looked at things before and there was no determinist precedent that guided me to this way of thinking.

That's why I believe in free will. We have the capacity to change the fundamental way in which we see the world and the freedom to do so, even if it's not evident to a lot of people, especially to people who's acces to knowledge is limited in various ways.



Player2 on 25 June 2016
Peh said:
Player2 said:

So you don't get it. Okay, I'll ask again. Do we have proof that the relation between each combination of chemical reactions and electrical stimuli leads to only one action, and that said action can be produced only by that combination?

Even easier: I'm asking for proof of bijectivity between cause and effect.

EDIT - Look at what you've done. It was way more fun with the bunnies, now it's... blargh. It's summer, for god's sake.

Too sum it up: Yes, if you go by the same starting factors and test it and repeat it with the same starting factors, the result will always be the same. That's how we define a law in science.

If someone possesses all the necessary factors to predict an outcome, he will be able to do it.

Testing this with brains is not possible, because of the memory effect which can alternate the result. Thus, the starting factors are different. What capabilities the neurons have and what thoughts and acts they can trigger is by every person different kind of different. There are certain regions of the brain which you can say what tasks they have, but neuroscience isn't that far to go for single neurons.

The proof between cause and effect: Physics.

Then we dont' have enough information to claim anything.



JWeinCom on 25 June 2016
Teeqoz said:
JWeinCom said:
It's really irrelevant. Whether it exists or not, the only logical thing to do is to act as if it does.

Well, not really.

 

It's especially important in punishment for crimes. In many (modern at that) countries today, people are still punished for the sake of punishing the one who comitted the crime. If there is no free will, then there is no rational reason for punishment for punishment's sake, and the only reason to punish criminals is to avoid crimes being comitted in the future, by the person himself, or by others.

If there is no free will, then we're going to do what we're going to do.  If we punish people, it's because we had to punish them.  If we don't punish them, it's because we weren't going to.  If we have no free will, then spending time worrying about it is a dead end.  

The only situation in which we can consciously influence our lives for the better is if we act as though there is free will and there is.



Around the Network
Player2 on 25 June 2016
KiigelHeart said:
Eagle367 said:
If free will is not real then the chaos theory is applied to the universe and with enough data you could see a 100 years from now but if free will is real then the humans become an anomaly and perhaps that is what life is. It is an anomaly to the creation that is the univweae

Maybe life and especially conciousness are an anomaly. What is conciousness and how did it come to be, is there a specific scientific explanation? Chemical reactions and electrical stimuls.. That's not much imo. What if one day humen or another beings evolve and reach a higher level of conciousness or something we can't even imagine with our brain capacity?

This should help a bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence



Eagle367 on 25 June 2016
KiigelHeart said:
Eagle367 said:
If free will is not real then the chaos theory is applied to the universe and with enough data you could see a 100 years from now but if free will is real then the humans become an anomaly and perhaps that is what life is. It is an anomaly to the creation that is the univweae

Maybe life and especially conciousness are an anomaly. What is conciousness and how did it come to be, is there a specific scientific explanation? Chemical reactions and electrical stimuls.. That's not much imo. What if one day humen or another beings evolve and reach a higher level of conciousness or something we can't even imagine with our brain capacity?

Exactly. Its a maybe at best for anyone cause you can't be sure.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 on 25 June 2016
Player2 said:
KiigelHeart said:

Maybe life and especially conciousness are an anomaly. What is conciousness and how did it come to be, is there a specific scientific explanation? Chemical reactions and electrical stimuls.. That's not much imo. What if one day humen or another beings evolve and reach a higher level of conciousness or something we can't even imagine with our brain capacity?

This should help a bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

How? Emergence is also a preconceived notion in regards to our discussion and does not give the proof needed to defunct free will or otherwise.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

deskpro2k3 on 25 June 2016
Peh said:
deskpro2k3 said:

 

We must go deeper.. deeper than those drain signals, chemicals and electrical impulses. Our brain is made up of atoms, and those atoms is made up of electrons and neutrons but even deeper than that is quarks..Still even more deeper...Higgs Bosons.. and.. deeper still? Photons? At what point are we different from the air that we breathe and the light that we see?

 

What do you expect to find there? First we differentiate between organic and unorganic materials. The difference in both lie in the moleculs and chemical compounds.

Look at how the DNA is made off. And than compare it to air and light. If you go only by atoms, you won't see a difference, because this world we live in is made of matter and energy. But at some level, the difference occur at how it interacts which each other.

 

Anything organic is made up of carbon, and carbon itself is not organic. Still not deep enough.



Roronaa_chan on 25 June 2016

Nothing is real, but that means there are no myths

So free will is neither real nor a myth