Free Will

[KasperKalamity]

somebody please prove me wrong. or give me medication to help ignore this series of conclusions:

1. you only think with your own brain, and are therefore limited to thoughts and actions that fall within your capacities.

2. your brain is defined by your genes and shaped by your environment, neither of which you chose.

3. if you don't do one thing, you do something else. at any given point your brain responds to your situation, and compels you to act based on its level of function, and correlation to personal experience.

4. therefore being alive and free will are mutually exclusive.

5. in the physical realm of being, given that all outcomes are equally probable, there is still one line between birth and death.

6. that being so, it is impossible to know the ends before the means.

7. the more people that exist, the greater the amount of lifeline intersections (or reactions) take place, presenting a larger test sample to observe emergent behavioral patterns.

8. which then exponentially reinforces the concept we understand as human nature.

therefore, free will can not exist under any circumstances. when someone changes their mind, they merely discover evidence to satisfy their doubt.

[MetalRenard]

How is being alive and having free will exclusive based on the idea that "if you don't do A then you do B"?
(correlation between point 3 and 4)

[KasperKalamity]

based on a single life being a single line between birth and death. i think the saying is something like "whenever god closes a door he opens a window" so you're always forced to react to something. is life really anything other than an exponential chain reaction?

[MetalRenard]

Well no.
Because as much as you want to see it as this over-simplified formula, it just isn't that simple.
Your choices are infinite, and you don't always react how you "normally would".

The real answer is that we're only as free as we're willing to let ourselves be. We choose to sacrifice freedom for safety - that's how society was born - our need to survive. You can choose to live completely freely, but then you must also face the hardships it brings. But that is your choice.

Then again, isn't choosing to not be free... A choice in itself and thus a demonstration of free will?

[KasperKalamity]

it's not your choices that are infinite, it is possibility. however all possibilitites have the same chance of happening up until they actually happen. i'm saying that there is no 'normal' reaction, there is only the reaction that your brain is capable of right then and there based on every other available variable. im saying that do-ing is just an extension of be-ing and to not do is to not be and to not be is to die. to live and do are not mutually exclusive, but living and do-ing are only as varied as your mental capacity allows, which is why we can describe something as complicated human nature.

i'm not saying anyone is particularly stupid, just that your own individual brain has its limits in what it thinks about and considers doing at any given point in time. im saying that the singular nature that we experience 'time' to be dictates that we can inly be doing one thing, or one set of things at any given point. everything that comes after that is a reaction to everything that came before that, based on your brain's specific 'tuning' if you will.

[ClockworkAngel]

I shall give these based on personal perspective, because I am aware that my perspective, whilst similar to others, is not the same. So!

1. You only think with your own brain, and are therefore limited to thoughts and actions that fall within your capacities.

Strictly speaking, yes. But the brain is an ever-changing, malleable organ, as has been proven with moder neuroscience. For more nerdy information on this, refer to THIS article. So actually saying that an individual's brain has limits or capacities is ridiculous as far as I am concerned. IT's imossible to gauge one's limits of cognitive functionality and, thus, is also impossible to dertimine how your future actions will compare to those of today. If presented in an identicle situation even as close as a week apart, there is no evidence to suggest that you would take the same course of action at both instances.

2. your brain is defined by your genes and shaped by your environment, neither of which you chose.

Also true in a strict sense, but there are far more powers at work in this than just genes and the environment. Each individual will build up their own unique thought processes, uninfluenced by the world around them. Some people will develop ways of thinking completely unrelated to their environment, or their ancestry. Not to say genes and the environment don't have an effect at all, but they are not the only variables that dertimine how your brain is "shaped".

3.if you don't do one thing, you do something else. at any given point your brain responds to your situation, and compels you to act based on its level of function, and correlation to personal experience.

That's a given. You are, at every single point in time, doing something. You cannot physically be doing nothing as long as you are still in existence. Even in death, you are still doing something, as your fingernails and hair will continue to grow, even for a tiem after death. Your brain processes information from all five senses continually, whether you are concious or not, and will react based on the information received. Try doing nothing right now. It's impossible. You'll be thinking of something. Or you'll be thinking of trying not to think of something. And even if you make your mind go completely mu, your brain will be working hard keeping you alive. If presented with a choice of two or more options, it is inevitable that you must do something and completely impossible to not do something. As for it's correlation to personal experience, surely that depends on points one and two? You may think about things in a logical manner and as such, take the most logical course of action, despite what you ahve personally experienced, thus technically going against your personal experiences in life. Isn't that right, Mr. Spock? XD

4 therefore being alive and free will are mutually exclusive..

There is absolutely no evidence for or against this. Nothing in the universe can prove whether we have free will or not. That is up to us to decide for ourselves. Because if we believe we DO have free will, then what if whatever controls our will wanted us to think that? All I'll say on this is, this quote from Professor Stephen Hawking: “I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

5. in the physical realm of being, given that all outcomes are equally probable, there is still one line between birth and death.
Not too sure I understand this point. Are you saying that despite all the differences amongst the variations of people and their thoughts on this planet, everyone is predestined to be born and to die? If so, then yes, of course. But that's not a lack of free will. We can no more will ourselves to live forever than we can will the rain to fall upwards. It's just basic science. A simple fact of the universe that cannot be changed. If not, then I'mma drink my tea quietly for this one.
6. that being so, it is impossible to know the ends before the means.
Once again, rather unsure. You seem to be talking in riddles now, rather than just make plain English points. n.n But it sounds like some fortune teller doohickey to me. "Impossible to know the ends before the means" as in, it's impossible to know the future without know how we'll get there? Because that's what my 6am brain is translating this as... Not the idea time for thought provoking replies, I know... XD

7. the more people that exist, the greater the amount of lifeline intersections (or reactions) take place, presenting a larger test sample to observe emergent behavioral patterns.

I'll come back to this. I can't actually think of anything for this at the moment, I'm that tired. XD So I'll leave it until I can have a proper think on it.
8. which then exponentially reinforces the concept we understand as human nature.

The only thing I deem as human nature, is Schadenfreude, and that's because humans are generally assholes like that, even myself. Everything else is so variable, I can't even choose where to being. Human nature is as wide and varied as humans themselves. Over 6 billion people on this planet... How can we possibly summarize similarities in personalities, actions and thought patterns with something as simple as Human Nature? What is it? There may have been a time, when countries were split and the world was large, but now it's a connected hub, centered around the great connector, the internet. In my eyes, there is no Human Nature anymore. Everyone thinks for themselves and acts for themselves. Inidivual Nature may be an obscure name for it, but I think it's a better term, because that's what everyone is. Everyone is an individual. They are born seperate, they think seperate, they live seperate lives. They may connected at times, but they will seperate again and go about their own way, not necessarilly the same as anyone elses. I do not think "human nature" should exist, for we are not a whole, we are individuals, each with our own views and beliefs on what our nature is.

That's my personal opinion up there. If it doesn't relate to what you wanted to say, then apologies. This is my view on things. I don't expect it to be the same as yours. After all, I'm an individual. n.n

[LagunaX1]

Do some scientific research yourself. Leading biologists and physicists such as Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss agree that all scientific evidence points towards free will not existing. There's no definitive proof yet, but there's a lot of research to back it up, such as one involving predicting when button a person will press based on brain activity 3 seconds before the person even consciously made the decision.

But yeah, you can find some pretty interesting scientific talks on youtube and shows like 'Horizon' on this subject with the minimum of searching around.

One think Dawkins and Lawrence also said is, they don't care if we do or don't. Because it makes no difference, and that's true. Even if we knew we had no free will, the illusion of free will would not disappear and we would not change. I think I agree with them.

edit: But yeah, while I'm not sure about how you reached your conclusion, I think there's definitely research and evidence to back it up.

[MetalRenard]

such as one involving predicting when button a person will press based on brain activity 3 seconds before the person even consciously made the decision.

This isn't proof of no free will, this is just proof saying that you think about something before you do it...

[LagunaX1]

No, you haven't even made the decision yet. And a different part of the brain showed activity each time, so the scientist could say "He will choose B" before the person decided he would choose B. And it was pretty much very accurate. I'm not really describing the experiment well lol Anyway, it indicates that the decision was made before we consciously made it.

Also, I never said it was proof of no free will, just it was an example of evidence that pointed towards there being no free will. Hence the "There's no definitive proof yet" part of the sentence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs (This isn't the same experiment, I found this and couldn't be bothered to keep looking lol)


I'm not very good at wording itmyself but here's a link and what's said I agree with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBxaOcZnGk

This link isn't supposed to be convincing or proof or anything, it's just someone else verbalizing my opinion in a way I can't lol

edit:

Daniel Dennett isn interesting speaker, worth checking this out http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_...sness.html

[KasperKalamity]

@Laguna- Sam Harris is a genius, and he was the one that got me started seriously thinking about the subject.

Alllrighty time to answer for all this. the only way to really convince someone of something, i've found, is by answering their doubts about a particular idea.

1. You only think with your own brain, and are therefore limited to thoughts and actions that fall within your capacities.

Strictly speaking, yes. But the brain is an ever-changing, malleable organ, as has been proven with moder neuroscience. For more nerdy information on this, refer to THIS article. So actually saying that an individual's brain has limits or capacities is ridiculous as far as I am concerned. IT's imossible to gauge one's limits of cognitive functionality and, thus, is also impossible to dertimine how your future actions will compare to those of today. If presented in an identicle situation even as close as a week apart, there is no evidence to suggest that you would take the same course of action at both instances.

What i'm saying is that your thought patterns, and what dictates those patterns are unique to you and your experiences. you don't think the same way a bat, a tree, or a cow in a high density feedlot think. your brain is human, and is shaped by your uniquely human experiences. you can't comprehend things in the same way an insect, or a seasponge do, so your human brain is limited by what it can comprehend and interpret about the world around it. it's not impossible to gauge the limits of one's cognitive functionality, as far as i know science just hasn't gotten there yet. there is no evidence to suggest you would take the same course of action in differing situations because you can't actually know until you do it. there are a myriad of factors at work that you process and ultimately use to 'decide' what to do. but even after all that, you still only 'decided' based on your thought processes, and your reaction to the situation. you don't choose how you think, or how you react to something, you just do. does that help? that's the best way i can explain it.

2. your brain is defined by your genes and shaped by your environment, neither of which you chose.

Also true in a strict sense, but there are far more powers at work in this than just genes and the environment. Each individual will build up their own unique thought processes, uninfluenced by the world around them. Some people will develop ways of thinking completely unrelated to their environment, or their ancestry. Not to say genes and the environment don't have an effect at all, but they are not the only variables that dertimine how your brain is "shaped".

But they are, think about the first modern humans. their thoughts and actions were dictated by the need to survive in their environment. you're going to have to go deeper into what you mean by developing ways of thinking completely unrelated to their environment. i'm not quite sure what you mean, and i would need an example.

3.if you don't do one thing, you do something else. at any given point your brain responds to your situation, and compels you to act based on its level of function, and correlation to personal experience.

That's a given. You are, at every single point in time, doing something. You cannot physically be doing nothing as long as you are still in existence. Even in death, you are still doing something, as your fingernails and hair will continue to grow, even for a tiem after death. Your brain processes information from all five senses continually, whether you are concious or not, and will react based on the information received. Try doing nothing right now. It's impossible. You'll be thinking of something. Or you'll be thinking of trying not to think of something. And even if you make your mind go completely mu, your brain will be working hard keeping you alive. If presented with a choice of two or more options, it is inevitable that you must do something and completely impossible to not do something. As for it's correlation to personal experience, surely that depends on points one and two? You may think about things in a logical manner and as such, take the most logical course of action, despite what you ahve personally experienced, thus technically going against your personal experiences in life. Isn't that right, Mr. Spock? XD

i can agree with everything here except for the idea that your brain still works after you die, since being medically dead is dependent on your brain activity. maybe we're just using different definitions.

4 therefore being alive and free will are mutually exclusive..

There is absolutely no evidence for or against this. Nothing in the universe can prove whether we have free will or not. That is up to us to decide for ourselves. Because if we believe we DO have free will, then what if whatever controls our will wanted us to think that? All I'll say on this is, this quote from Professor Stephen Hawking: “I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”

I would say that claiming things are predestined is different from claiming we have no free will. Claiming something is predestined carries the connotation that you know what the outcome will be, and are able to account for the innumerable 'random' factors (which aren't actually random, just unobservable, or otherwise unaccounted for) I like that quote, it's good for trolling smartasses at fancy parties. All i'm saying is that due to the singular nature of what we comprehend as time, we can't know what is actually going to happen until it happens, or starts to happen. you can know a baseball is going to hit you right in the face because you can see it coming. however you can't look 20 years into the future, and see yourself getting hit by a truck, unless that's the plan, and even if that is the plan, something can go wrong with it, or your own quirks and thought processes will lead you to it. i think if you're the type of person that is going to kill yourself, you're not going to do it on a whim.

5. in the physical realm of being, given that all outcomes are equally probable, there is still one line between birth and death.
Not too sure I understand this point. Are you saying that despite all the differences amongst the variations of people and their thoughts on this planet, everyone is predestined to be born and to die? If so, then yes, of course. But that's not a lack of free will. We can no more will ourselves to live forever than we can will the rain to fall upwards. It's just basic science. A simple fact of the universe that cannot be changed. If not, then I'mma drink my tea quietly for this one.

I'm saying that everything that is alive will eventually die. Because the universe had a beginning, it will have an end. the lack of free will here comes from the idea that being alive is dependent on a lack of free will. (also rain can do whatever it wants, listen to Neil Degrass Tyson talk about what happens in a black hole. we just don't understand it with the physics we've come up with so far)

6. that being so, it is impossible to know the ends before the means.
Once again, rather unsure. You seem to be talking in riddles now, rather than just make plain English points. n.n But it sounds like some fortune teller doohickey to me. "Impossible to know the ends before the means" as in, it's impossible to know the future without know how we'll get there? Because that's what my 6am brain is translating this as... Not the idea time for thought provoking replies, I know... XD

Here I'm saying that you can't know exactly to the point how and when any given interaction will take place, or plan come to completion. You can't know exactly how something will happen, but you can look back on something that already happened, and describe it objectively.

7. the more people that exist, the greater the amount of lifeline intersections (or reactions) take place, presenting a larger test sample to observe emergent behavioral patterns.

I'll come back to this. I can't actually think of anything for this at the moment, I'm that tired. XD So I'll leave it until I can have a proper think on it.

in an experiment, you have your sample group that you use to observe the results. what you're normally looking for is anything that confirms or denies your hypothesis in relation to your control group that you don't do anything different with. the larger the sample group, the greater reinforcement of success or failure you have in confirming your original hypothesis.

8. which then exponentially reinforces the concept we understand as human nature.

The only thing I deem as human nature, is Schadenfreude, and that's because humans are generally assholes like that, even myself. Everything else is so variable, I can't even choose where to being. Human nature is as wide and varied as humans themselves. Over 6 billion people on this planet... How can we possibly summarize similarities in personalities, actions and thought patterns with something as simple as Human Nature? What is it? There may have been a time, when countries were split and the world was large, but now it's a connected hub, centered around the great connector, the internet. In my eyes, there is no Human Nature anymore. Everyone thinks for themselves and acts for themselves. Inidivual Nature may be an obscure name for it, but I think it's a better term, because that's what everyone is. Everyone is an individual. They are born seperate, they think seperate, they live seperate lives. They may connected at times, but they will seperate again and go about their own way, not necessarilly the same as anyone elses. I do not think "human nature" should exist, for we are not a whole, we are individuals, each with our own views and beliefs on what our nature is.

That's my personal opinion up there. If it doesn't relate to what you wanted to say, then apologies. This is my view on things. I don't expect it to be the same as yours. After all, I'm an individual. n.n

here, i'm just trying to say that across any given culture, there are similarities to how we as humans think and act. there is self preservation, fear of the unknown, superstition, curiosity, astonishment, and tons of other things that i can't really think of right now because i haven't done that much research into behavioral patterns of bushmen tribes in tanzania. or something like that... basically us being humans, and thinking about the world from a human perspective, will force us into certain patterns in order to survive.

i'm not trying to start anything spiritual here, as i don't believe in the metaphysical in a conventional sense. i believe that the more scientifically literate we are, the less we need to rely on metaphysical, or metaphorical, answers to put to rest our general lack of understanding in the way the universe functions. imagine showing magellan a nuclear submarine. he would either shit himself and die of astonishment at the amount of what he would not understand, or just brush it off as a divine intervention. we still do that today when we use 'god' as a way to explain what we do not understand, or no longer are able to measure, such as the incremental advancements of prehistoric hominids towards today's modern humans.