Free will

[Akira Kogami[LC]]

I see two reasons why free will might not exist.

The first is this: People make decisions based on their genetics (temperament, intelligence, etc), and also based on their environment (the decision they are making and the circumstances under which they are making.) Since people ultimately control neither their genetics nor their environment. How can they really be blamed for anything they do? and furthermore, how can they have free will.

The second is this: If there really is a God (and I believe there is, but bare with me if you don't) and that God knows everything, that means that he even knows the future. If God knows the future, and god is never wrong, that means the future is unchangeable, it is already set in stone, its static. Then no matter what we do we can't change it. If we can't control our own future, do we really have free will at all?

[TheAsterisk!]

1) People are blamed for their actions and isolated from the general population in an attempt to keep society safe and to prevent the proliferation of malevolence.
2) Yes, if you think of things rationally in a religious sense, you will become confused due to inconsistencies in philosophy and claims; that's nothing new.
3) If one thinks of all particles with their associated masses, charges, volumes, shapes, and vectored velocities, the future is already determined, and was since immediately following the Big Bang; predestination is fact. The thing is, though, nobody can know all of the information necessary to predict the future, mostly due to the Heisenberg Uncertaitny Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and, more simply put, the observer effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect) (the latter is easier to understand). Simply put, whatever you observe you also effect. Even if one ignores the magnificent impracticality of observing all aspects of every particle in the universe, it is conceptually impossible to do.
4) Because predestination is fact yet the future cannot be predicted accurately, the easiest way to live is to act as if free will is fact/truth. It isn't entirely true, but, operationally, it works pretty well (sort of like Newtonian physics v. quantum mechanics).

5) Freewill did, in fact, exist for a short time. It came into being in 1980 and ceased to exist a little over four minutes later.

[Akira Kogami[LC]]

4) Because predestination is fact yet the future cannot be predicted accurately, the easiest way to live is to act as if free will is fact/truth. It isn't entirely true, but, operationally, it works pretty well (sort of like Newtonian physics v. quantum mechanics).


I agree with you on that.

[Eris]

3) If one thinks of all particles with their associated masses, charges, volumes, shapes, and vectored velocities, the future is already determined, and was since immediately following the Big Bang; predestination is fact. The thing is, though, nobody can know all of the information necessary to predict the future, mostly due to the Heisenberg Uncertaitny Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and, more simply put, the observer effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect) (the latter is easier to understand). Simply put, whatever you observe you also effect. Even if one ignores the magnificent impracticality of observing all aspects of every particle in the universe, it is conceptually impossible to do.

We use things such as electric fields, instead of the position of billions of individual electrons to describe electromagnetic effects. We are seldom wrong in using them, because they are statistical functions of particle attributes. It's not impossible that a predictable macroscopic reality emerges from an unpredictable microscopic reality. Think of macroscopic reality as using timespans so great that the probabilities of quantum physics fuzz out and turn into average values (where individual results are irrelevant).

[TheAsterisk!]

Alright, Eris, but wouldn't you need to take individual particles into account as well seeing as chemical reactions are likely to take place with most substances at one point or another? I'm not dealing with a short time span as far as predictions are concerned; I am contending that the existence of everything and the events to take place are predetermined, but there is no way to determine the future in all its minute detail for a indefinite time into the future. I am well aware that predictions can be made about given systems into the near future (a few decades, at most, given enough information and a docile enough system) but I contend that knowing all applicable information about all particles and their distances from each other would allow the prediction of everything. There is no way to get measurements on such a grand (and minute) scale, though, so the idea has little practical, day to day consequence.
Where did I go wrong? I'd hate to be making a fool out of myself...

[genericusername2]

There is free will, it's just you don't have it because you are a moron.

[CyraXZero]

well even if our destiny was already decided we would never know. hence we do have free will because we did what we thought was best at the time (for that individual atleast).

[Aizmov]

I make my own decisions. So yeah I believe in free will!

[Hideki Motosuwa.]

I make my own decisions. So yeah I believe in free will!
Same here.

[Alias-Revolution]

Oh, Look. Another thread where I can argue with TheAsterisk!. Hi *.

Anyway,
I know it's only song lyrics, but let me quote a few from Rush. It's from a song called Free Will. (Seemed appropriate.)

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.


Looking at this we see that the real arguement here is not between Divine Intervention and Free Will, but Fate as well. Does fate exist? If so, what becomes of free will? And where does divine intervention fit into all this?

[manslayer101]

Yes i believe in free will, to me destiny doesn't exist, however, you mentioned God, well i too believe in him (don't start a god conversation *fingers crossed)

but i also believe that God knows what will happen based on human actions. remember that history always repeats itself because of the actions of human beings, a guy gets mad at another guy mad guy punches other guy, they get in a fight, it's as simple as that.

But back to freewill, i believe in freewill because if i get up one day and decide between eating an apple or an orange, and i choose the orange it was out of my personal choice, i wasn't located in a white room where the room next to me contained a few government agents commanding me to take the orange, and if i took the apple i would disappear :D

of course the example is a joke, but proves the point clearly

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

The basic problem with this thread is that most of you are confusing Freedom of Choice with the concept of Free Will.

I will let his informative Venn Diagram I made explain the similarities between the two.

http://www.animeforum.com/image/10756479a112559e96.png

Freedom of Choice is a ethical concept- whether or not you should be allowed to do things that have no direct negative effect on others. And no one in this thread has it. Sure, you can choose Apples over Oranges for your breakfast, but stand in front of a police station and smoke a joint and you'll find yourself in jail.

Free Will, however, is a philosophical concept that states that is possible to truly make a choice- you aren't choosing Apples over Oranges because you are naturally predisposed to apples, but because you made that choice. I personally don't believe in this concept- only a person with no memory could make a choice of one over the other without bring past events into the equation, and we, with enough observational data could prognosticate what that person would choose even then.

[jewel2sparkle]

Exactly.

[Totsean]

No! Don't buy into that! THat is not true. In fact, the way the universe is "set up" should serve you, not disserve you!

You are always at a place of free will and total choice. Being able to see into the "future" (or get others to do it for you like psychics) should enhance your ability to live the life you want, not limit it.

[dark_is_light]

;1955624']
The first is this: People make decisions based on their genetics (temperament, intelligence, etc), and also based on their environment (the decision they are making and the circumstances under which they are making.) Since people ultimately control neither their genetics nor their environment. How can they really be blamed for anything they do? and furthermore, how can they have free will?
First, people in similar circumstances have made completely different choices. In the end, you choose what your mind will accept as your own personal belief. Many people can go the easy route by making the common choices, but not all. However, if you choose to believe that you have no free will, then you don't. You give it up by simply believing it. Because, even in circumstances you can't change, if you fight to change them, then that makes all the difference.


;1955624']
The second is this: If there really is a God (and I believe there is, but bare with me if you don't) and that God knows everything, that means that he even knows the future. If God knows the future, and god is never wrong, that means the future is unchangeable, it is already set in stone, its static. Then no matter what we do we can't change it. If we can't control our own future, do we really have free will at all?
Okay, I don't really believe in "God" persay. I'm agnostic. But if It (not necessarily He) did exist, couldn't he choose not to know, just to allow for free will? Then, no matter what happens, it is by our choice and ours alone. Even in Christian ideology, people are still presented with a choice, though the Bible says that "God" has a plan, It (again not He) doesn't force Its will on people. But I must repeat, that only when you give up believing you have free will, will you ever lose it.

[JD_Himself]

God is an imaginary friend for grown ups, and even with the limits of Genetics and Enviroment as you put it we still have a bajillion choices within them limits, does that make sense?

[Musaki]

One has to look at his/her choices to be able to see and change the future
only God knows what choices we will make but he wants us too choose for ourselfs and there for we are the creators of our future we can make and shape as we please

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

No! Don't buy into that! THat is not true. In fact, the way the universe is "set up" should serve you, not disserve you!

You are always at a place of free will and total choice. Being able to see into the "future" (or get others to do it for you like psychics) should enhance your ability to live the life you want, not limit it.

That's exactly what I am talking about. Lack of Free Will does not limit what choices you CAN make; it instead says that if we put the same person in the same situation, he will always make the same choice. I guess this point is too subtle if you aren't into philosophy.

[Golden State Warrior]

;1955624']I see two reasons why free will might not exist.

The first is this: People make decisions based on their genetics (temperament, intelligence, etc), and also based on their environment (the decision they are making and the circumstances under which they are making.) Since people ultimately control neither their genetics nor their environment. How can they really be blamed for anything they do? and furthermore, how can they have free will.

I think people disguise your first theory as free will. It's similar to how the Matrix is disguised as real life.

But, here's my thing. When we make a decision to make our decisions based on our environment, don't we have "free will" to choose whether or not to make that decision? Example. If I was born in the really bad neighborhood, I may be constantly surrounded by drugs and violence. I have the ability to choose whether or not I want to contribute to the drugs and the violence that's constantly plagued in that environment. Right?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I think people disguise your first theory as free will. It's similar to how the Matrix is disguised as real life.

But, here's my thing. When we make a decision to make our decisions based on our environment, don't we have "free will" to choose whether or not to make that decision? Example. If I was born in the really bad neighborhood, I may be constantly surrounded by drugs and violence. I have the ability to choose whether or not I want to contribute to the drugs and the violence that's constantly plagued in that environment. Right?

Again, It's freedom of will, not freedom of choice that is up for debate.


Main article: Free will
The standard use of this term is as a distinction between internally motivated and caused events and external events. Jumping off a cliff would be an act of free will; accidentally falling or being pushed off a cliff would not be an act of free will.

Some people believe that seemingly "free" actions aren't actually free, or that the entire concept is a chimera. The argument generally goes along the lines that since "internal" beliefs are affected by earlier external events, nothing is truly an internal choice, because everything you do is [pre]determined. Alternately, if there is no foreordained future, we may be at the mercy of the randomness of chance, which may also negate free will.


Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.

[niKopol]

Different people do make the same decisions. Truthfully, its rather boring. Especially when you see personalities and looks repeat too. The only reason I haven't gone completely bonkers is because there are slight subtle differences.

I try to make decisions that are beneficial in the long run. I also make decisions that are beneficial to others and sometimes it makes me look like the bad guy.

Free-will... hmm... I'll try to simplify. I could take a gun to a school and shoot everyone that I didn't like. Or I could just let my grudge slide. Which would be more beneficial. Free-will is a battle between your emotions and your ability to think logically and rationally. Though I only mentioned two things that I can do, I can carry either them out in many different ways. Free-will isn't only what you do, its also how you do it.

Damn it, MP2K, I just repeated what you said in my own words...

[Golden State Warrior]

Again, It's freedom of will, not freedom of choice that is up for debate.

I used to think will and choice were one of the same. Looks like I was mistaken.

Thanks for pointing them out. Well, looks like I can fire the devil's advocate now.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

I used to think will and choice were one of the same. Looks like I was mistaken.

Thanks for pointing them out. Well, looks like I can fire the devil's advocate now.
Well, they do mean something very similar to one another in common English, but philosophical English uses different definitions.

[Golden State Warrior]

I knew I shouldn't have dropped that Philosophy class in college.

[Asriel]

I have one thing to say..............

God doesn't exist.I do believe knowone has free will and theres so no such thing as free will because were all bound to something anyway.There are chains that cannot be seen that people are bound to.Those who do see,truly understand the meaning of "NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL"

[Red Phantoms]

Indeed everyone are linked even the simpelest thing you did can change someone condition dramaticaly. Even a good will can be bad in the eyes of the other. Everythings here is about a action and reaction. but at least we are free to chose how we decided to react by foolowing the rule or not. well but i trust in god though

[niKopol]

I have one thing to say..............

God doesn't exist.I do believe knowone has free will and theres so no such thing as free will because were all bound to something anyway.There are chains that cannot be seen that people are bound to.Those who do see,truly understand the meaning of "NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL"

Without those chains life would be empty. Family, friends, laws, or god... or whatever else you choose to "chain" you. To be truely free is to be dead, Literally or metaphorically.

[manslayer101]

you aren't choosing Apples over Oranges because you are naturally predisposed to apples, but because you made that choice.

and if i preferred an apple and chose an orange although i may have wanted an apple? :p:D

The reason i don't believe in destiny is because each person has choices everyday, and i don't just mean apples and oranges :D, but rather big choices you make in your life. i don't believe in people having destined people either, i hear all the time from other adults "if i never would have met my spouse, then i wouldn't have married anyone else" i don't believe that either, because it's the fact that they chose the person that they are with because they fell in love with them that they have that person today.

The reason i believe in freewill is because i have made many choices in my life which i know could've changed and i could've been better, but at the same time i chose the other path because it seemed more appealing, i still had very much open space to choose the other and didn't.

but here comes MHP2K and Eris ;):D

[███]

It is possible to have a destiny, and yet still have a choice. Somewhere, sometime in life I am going to die, that all depends on where it happens and when. God already knows but that is just because he knows what we will decide.

Put it this way, have a game of Scissors, Paper, Rock. You will notice that everyone always chooses scissors first, it doesn't mean that they didn't have a choice though.

[Eris]

Without those chains life would be empty. Family, friends, laws, or god... or whatever else you choose to "chain" you. To be truely free is to be dead, Literally or metaphorically.

I claim the exact opposite. Unless you are truly free, you are dead. Because then you are defined by your constraints, and therefore utterly predictable, and therefore dead. It is only when you are free of constraints, you can live.

[Sanosuke23]

I claim the exact opposite. Unless you are truly free, you are dead. Because then you are defined by your constraints, and therefore utterly predictable, and therefore dead. It is only when you are free of constraints, you can live.

Ah, but what if instead of having these chains bind you, you're merely holding on to them to help you gain your freedom, and keeping you from falling into a pit of apathy and general inaction? One can be inspired and fueled by responsibilities they take upon themselves by choice. This doesn't make you effectively any less free, because you're using your freedom to be attached to these things as opposed to having nothing to use your freedom for and therefore becoming utterly predictable in your inactivity.

[Eris]

Ah, but what if instead of having these chains bind you, you're merely holding on to them to help you gain your freedom, and keeping you from falling into a pit of apathy and general inaction? One can be inspired and fueled by responsibilities they take upon themselves by choice. This doesn't make you effectively any less free, because you're using your freedom to be attached to these things as opposed to having nothing to use your freedom for and therefore becoming utterly predictable in your inactivity.

I didn't say you should free yourself from interaction, but from constraints. A constraint is, by definition, something that hinders you from acting freely.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

and if i preferred an apple and chose an orange although i may have wanted an apple? :p:D
Then you would have had reasons to. Perhaps you normally prefer apples, but wanted more Vitamin C. The point is, if you aren't flipping a coin to make your decision, you have a reason, and if you have a reason you aren't exercising free will. Also, if you flip a coin, you still are making a choice to leave it up to fate, which is also not free will.


The reason i don't believe in destiny is because each person has choices everyday, and i don't just mean apples and oranges :D, but rather big choices you make in your life. i don't believe in people having destined people either, i hear all the time from other adults "if i never would have met my spouse, then i wouldn't have married anyone else" i don't believe that either, because it's the fact that they chose the person that they are with because they fell in love with them that they have that person today.
A deterministic universe isn't a requirement of a lack of free will. Don't get me wrong, the universe is probably deterministic, but even if it wasn't people would still be.


The reason i believe in freewill is because i have made many choices in my life which i know could've changed and i could've been better, but at the same time i chose the other path because it seemed more appealing, i still had very much open space to choose the other and didn't.
Reread: Every other post I have made in this thread. Choice and Free Will are different concepts. You made exactly the choice a person in your position in your situation would always make- That is lack of free will. The whole concept of free will is dubious, because the only way you could exercise it is by doing something you would never have reason to do, and no one has ever done anything like that. If you made a choice, you would have a reason even if it doesn't logically make sense to outside observers.

[niKopol]

I consider wants and needs also as a chain or constraints. If you count these as a chain then and add your view... You would have to either be a god or immortal to be truely free.

[manslayer101]

Then you would have had reasons to. Perhaps you normally prefer apples, but wanted more Vitamin C. The point is, if you aren't flipping a coin to make your decision, you have a reason, and if you have a reason you aren't exercising free will. Also, if you flip a coin, you still are making a choice to leave it up to fate, which is also not free will.


the rest of your argument is decent, but this i don't get, when i choose what to eat i don't always have a reason, but sometimes i do, i.e. yesterday i wanted sushi, so i made some. Sometimes i want a piece of cake, and could easily pick one but i pick fruit instead, not because of the sugar or the fact that the fruit is better for me, just because i wanted it....but once again, as you have stated, that's choice....


freewill would be going out and pissing on the whitehouse lawn, i have the willpower to do it and will, but at the same time i would be imprisoned for it, but at the same time i had the free will to do so, and did it. Because something would have consequences doesn't mean that it's not a choice of free will.

I like arguing with ya MHP2K :p :D

[niKopol]

You'll have to excuse me for I haven't studied free-will as in depth as you MP2K. Free-will would be doing something without thinking about it?

hmm... So basically acting with your heart (emotions) and not your mind? Or do you mean like children, who do things for no reason?

[Sanosuke23]

I didn't say you should free yourself from interaction, but from constraints. A constraint is, by definition, something that hinders you from acting freely.

True, but I'm talking about choosing constraints. For instance, placing Family over Self in all respects by choice. You are indeed hampered by it, but through your self-sacrifice you feel you find purpose, and can effectively live with more freedom than someone that has no restraints, but at the same time has no motivation.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

the rest of your argument is decent, but this i don't get, when i choose what to eat i don't always have a reason, but sometimes i do, i.e. yesterday i wanted sushi, so i made some. Sometimes i want a piece of cake, and could easily pick one but i pick fruit instead, not because of the sugar or the fact that the fruit is better for me, just because i wanted it....but once again, as you have stated, that's choice....
You would still have a reason, even if it is subconscious.



freewill would be going out and pissing on the whitehouse lawn, i have the willpower to do it and will, but at the same time i would be imprisoned for it, but at the same time i had the free will to do so, and did it. Because something would have consequences doesn't mean that it's not a choice of free will.

I like arguing with ya MHP2K :p :DIt's not consequences, it's the past and who you are that constrain your will.


You'll have to excuse me for I haven't studied free-will as in depth as you MP2K. Free-will would be doing something without thinking about it?

hmm... So basically acting with your heart (emotions) and not your mind? Or do you mean like children, who do things for no reason?
Well, I am referring to how free will would have to be conducted to be free in my way of thinking. How the proponents would put it is more like:

I can think anything and perform any action within reason that I can think of. Ergo, my will is free.

However, the less hippified philosophers have pointed things like:

"Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life... . But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns...." - Arthur Schopenhauer

[manslayer101]

It's not consequences, it's the past and who you are that constrain your will.

meaning that i had free will

[riakage0]

Every time I see topics like this I simply must post, God and free-will do not exist, I have come up with exact PROOF as to why they do not exist. But I refuse to share this proof with anybody in the world. Don't ask why, I have my reasons.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

meaning that i had free will

Meaning that you don't, because you have a past and self-image.

[niKopol]

Meaning that you don't, because you have a past and self-image.

Just out of curiosity. What if you get amnesia? Like if every night you reset.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

That sort of thing isn't a complete loss of memory, unless they are reduced to the mind of a infant by their inability to keep ahold of their own memories. The sort of disorder you are talking about is a loss of some memories- the people still know a great deal about their surroundings. They don't have to be taught how to, say, feed themselves, and certain aspects of their personality are intact. They still aren't capable of free will, they just aren't playing solitaire with a full deck.

[niKopol]

I guess I was right... to be free is to be dead.

Jeez, the one time you should have proved me wrong.

[manslayer101]

Meaning that you don't, because you have a past and self-image.

or that i had freewill


free will
n.
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

for a reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will

As stated by both definitions free will is a what? CHOICE a choice based on your WILL to do something, so that means if i make a CHOICE based on my WILL i am acting of my own free will. Well, what about external circumstances you may ask, as stated in the example, external circumstances would be for instance being pushed off a cliff rather than walking off, being forcefed an apple rather than choosing an orange. and for those who don't know what your will is:


will2
noun, verb, willed, will·ing. –noun
1.the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2.power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3.the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4.wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5.purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
6.the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out: to work one's will.

reference page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will (go to the noun)

if i haven't made this clear enough:

free will would have been a choice, made by a person's will, a person's will, as stated, is the power of choosing one's own actions, meaning that if you choose your actions you are exercising free will meaning, get this:

Free Will Exists

whether you choose to believe it or not. Free Will is a choice based on will will is the power of choosing one's actions Free will is a choice, they are one in the same, the fact that you choose anything is because you are acting on your will at that moment, whether it be for nutrition, health, love, life, etc. no matter what the circumstance if you are choosing anything in your life, you are acting upon your will, or, if it hasn't been clear enough:

Exercising Free Will

please, counter me if you find any problems with the statement i just posted, or if your intelligence tells you otherwise :p:D;)

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

or that i had freewill



for a reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will

As stated by both definitions free will is a what? CHOICE a choice based on your WILL to do something, so that means if i make a CHOICE based on my WILL i am acting of my own free will. Well, what about external circumstances you may ask, as stated in the example, external circumstances would be for instance being pushed off a cliff rather than walking off, being forcefed an apple rather than choosing an orange. and for those who don't know what your will is:



reference page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will (go to the noun)

if i haven't made this clear enough:

free will would have been a choice, made by a person's will, a person's will, as stated, is the power of choosing one's own actions, meaning that if you choose your actions you are exercising free will meaning, get this:

Free Will Exists

whether you choose to believe it or not. Free Will is a choice based on will will is the power of choosing one's actions Free will is a choice, they are one in the same, the fact that you choose anything is because you are acting on your will at that moment, whether it be for nutrition, health, love, life, etc. no matter what the circumstance if you are choosing anything in your life, you are acting upon your will, or, if it hasn't been clear enough:

Exercising Free Will

please, counter me if you find any problems with the statement i just posted, or if your intelligence tells you otherwise :p:D;)

Well, I have already countered this train of thought about 15 times, but I will go ahead and say it again.

Your will isn't free because although you CAN make any choice, YOU WILL NOT. There will always be only one choice you will make in any situation because it is the one that makes the most sense to YOU subjectively.

You stand at a crosswalk in an intersection. You WOULD NOT walk out into oncoming traffic unless YOU have a reason to. The reason you make this choice to Kill Yourself/Not Kill Yourself is determined by external stimuli- if your wife left you, you lost your job and your dog died you might find that stepping in front of a SUV is a better choice. If you have a well paying, a trophy wife, and a toilet made of solid gold, you are much less likely to choose to become a statistic.

If I want to steal an example from Eris, I offer you two things- A great deal of no-strings-attached tax-free money, or flaming death. In real life everyone except the seriously deranged (who could very well value ending their lives more then financial security, natch) would take the flaming death. I have controlled your reality, and therefore your will. You could make either choice, I won't deny. But my actions have forced your hand to make the only choice you would in your situation.

If your choices are determined by external stimuli, your will can not by definition be FREE. Your will is inexorably shackled to WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST FOR YOU IN RELATION TO YOUR REALITY.

[manslayer101]

Well, I have already countered this train of thought about 15 times, but I will go ahead and say it again.

Your will isn't free because although you CAN make any choice, YOU WILL NOT. There will always be only one choice you will make in any situation because it is the one that makes the most sense to YOU subjectively.

You stand at a crosswalk in an intersection. You WOULD NOT walk out into oncoming traffic unless YOU have a reason to. The reason you make this choice to Kill Yourself/Not Kill Yourself is determined by external stimuli- if your wife left you, you lost your job and your dog died you might find that stepping in front of a SUV is a better choice. If you have a well paying, a trophy wife, and a toilet made of solid gold, you are much less likely to choose to become a statistic.

If I want to steal an example from Eris, I offer you two things- A great deal of no-strings-attached tax-free money, or flaming death. In real life everyone except the seriously deranged (who could very well value ending their lives more then financial security, natch) would take the flaming death. I have controlled your reality, and therefore your will. You could make either choice, I won't deny. But my actions have forced your hand to make the only choice you would in your situation.

If your choices are determined by external stimuli, your will can not by definition be FREE. Your will is inexorably shackled to WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST FOR YOU IN RELATION TO YOUR REALITY.

it is true that manipulation doesn't allow free will, however, not all choices in life are dependant on manipulation or otherwise, if you were to offer $500 tax free, a pc worth $500, a car worth $500 (figuratively speaking), a boat worth $500, and flaming death, a person would choose of their own free will which they would want, and even if the seriously deranged chose the flaming death, that one seriously deranged person just proved free will, whether you manipulated the situation or not. You haven't proven anything, you are basing your results on manipulation or chance, you have failed to factor in the fact that even if a stupid choice was made, a choice was made, and that 1% out of all the other 99% chose the bad choice, that one choice proves that the person had a will of their own, whether they be mentally deranged, depressed, or was happy to die, the fact that they chose another heading would be proof that the theory you have provided is incorrect.

The fact that you can make a choice and will depending on circumstances proves free will, i already explaned this, you cannot base all your results on manipulation alone:

the governement has laws, correct? well these laws are both broken and abided by each day, the people that have broken the laws, even the ones that are punished for their wrong doings have still acted of their own will, even making a clearly unwise choice, they acted upon their will.

some people want marriage before sex, some just go and have multiple partners, although one way would be easier, and would prevent more std's (given the people were tested beforehand), however, there are those that prove the other path, this is also an act of free will.

Your statement has disbanded nothing, you have merely added to the proof...

and for this statement:

" Your will isn't free because although you CAN make any choice, YOU WILL NOT. There will always be only one choice you will make in any situation because it is the one that makes the most sense to YOU subjectively."

wrong, what i just said also countered this, there are many situations in one's life in which one chooses to act in a way that they will, there is not always just one choice for anything, if this were true, everyone would choose the same thing, do the same jobs, go to the same places, etc etc. there are some situations which will only have one outcome, but not every situation does, whether one did or not it goes back to what i said about manipulation or "ultimatums" not every choice in your life is an ultimatum, this fact alone proves that free will exists, you have yet to disprove that the resources i posted are wrong, and freewill itself.

one more thing:

"You stand at a crosswalk in an intersection. You WOULD NOT walk out into oncoming traffic unless YOU have a reason to. The reason you make this choice to Kill Yourself/Not Kill Yourself is determined by external stimuli- if your wife left you, you lost your job and your dog died you might find that stepping in front of a SUV is a better choice. If you have a well paying, a trophy wife, and a toilet made of solid gold, you are much less likely to choose to become a statistic."

umm, well, to answer you clearly:

Will: power of choosing one's own actions
Free Will: The ability or discretion to choose; free choice

whether the choice was based on other circumstances or not, it was made by your own will...

BTW nice argument, you're wrong (jk), but nice argument :D:p

....but you are wrong lol

[bug]

This topic is very much like asking what the meaning of life is. Some say that life has no meaning. Others say it is whatever you make it. Some people look at it from a distance and say that it is to carry on the human species. I don't think that free will can be defined specifically. For example, if someone had a gun up to my head and told me to give them money, those that mean I still have free will? I could do anything I want. I could run. I could yell. I could hand over the money. I could do anything within reason. However, ultimately, don't I have two reasonable choices? Hand over the money and live, or not hand over the money and die. Of course, you could look at this situation from another point of view, but I just used the, you always have free will because you could do anything you want (within reason), and the, free will is limited (which I guess means that there is no free will) because in the end there are always a couple of ultimate choices you could make, ideas because there pretty simple to understand. In the end, everyone's opinion is deferent. For me, I've just decided to leave a blank spot for my specific definition of free will.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

it is true that manipulation doesn't allow free will, however, not all choices in life are dependant on manipulation or otherwise,
Except that they are. It's just not so obvious to you, because you don't recognize that a system is limited by it's input. You still won't make any choice that you wouldn't conceder the best in any given situation.


if you were to offer $500 tax free, a pc worth $500, a car worth $500 (figuratively speaking), a boat worth $500, and flaming death, a person would choose of their own free will which they would want,
They could choose, but not of their on free will. They will choose what they want the most at that point and time, based on how previous decisions turned out, whether they want/already have any of these things, whether they need a new [whatever]. It can be a very complex decision, but it will always come back to the same thing- how they exist in relation to reality. This is choice, but not freedom of will. Their are somethings they very clearly will not want, and somethings they very clearly will. Their decision between the things they want is based on what they know- the human mind is completely deterministic.


and even if the seriously deranged chose the flaming death, that one seriously deranged person just proved free will, whether you manipulated the situation or not. You haven't proven anything, you are basing your results on manipulation or chance, Already addressed.


you have failed to factor in the fact that even if a stupid choice was made, a choice was made, and that 1% out of all the other 99% chose the bad choice, that one choice proves that the person had a will of their own, whether they be mentally deranged, depressed, or was happy to die, the fact that they chose another heading would be proof that the theory you have provided is incorrect.
No, it would prove that reality is subjective. What I would choose has no baring on what they would choose but one thing is certain- they will choose what they think is best. I will give you a hint: In order to defeat my statements, you have to prove (in the philosophical sense) that people will make choices they don't feel is best in any given context. NOT one's they regret later, NOT ones they feel they could have gone either way on, NOT ones that are done in a lapse of reason or a moment of passion but ones they think are absolutely awful (or at least not the best) on every level- conscious or subconscious but do anyway. No one does this. Essentially it's the same as adding 2+2 and getting 5 although much more fundamental an error. People will always on some level think they are making the best choice- or else they'd make a different one. What choice is "best" is deturmined by the chooser, based on what they know. All they know is reality and for that very reason their reality controls their will.


The fact that you can make a choice and will depending on circumstances proves free will, i already explaned this, you cannot base all your results on manipulation alone:
Choices you can make, however you will always choose the same thing in any one trial, because it seems best at the time. Why does it seem best- because of your relation to reality.


the governement has laws, correct? well these laws are both broken and abided by each day, the people that have broken the laws, even the ones that are punished for their wrong doings have still acted of their own will, even making a clearly unwise choice, they acted upon their will.

some people want marriage before sex, some just go and have multiple partners, although one way would be easier, and would prevent more std's (given the people were tested beforehand), however, there are those that prove the other path, this is also an act of free will.

This is irrelevant. Morality is not the law, and neither are absolute. The people that intentionally broke laws or had risky sex had reasons- reasons negate free will because reasons are based on the persons subjective reality. A persons subjective reality is based on the objective reality. Reality is the fulcrum of all will.


Your statement has disbanded nothing, you have merely added to the proof...

and for this statement:

" Your will isn't free because although you CAN make any choice, YOU WILL NOT. There will always be only one choice you will make in any situation because it is the one that makes the most sense to YOU subjectively."

wrong, what i just said also countered this, there are many situations in one's life in which one chooses to act in a way that they will, there is not always just one choice for anything, if this were true, everyone would choose the same thing, do the same jobs, go to the same places, etc etc. there are some situations which will only have one outcome, but not every situation does, whether one did or not it goes back to what i said about manipulation or "ultimatums" not every choice in your life is an ultimatum, this fact alone proves that free will exists, you have yet to disprove that the resources i posted are wrong, and freewill itself. As I said, reality is subjective. A person can only make choices based on what they know which is why choices are not uniform. This very nicely explains why different people will make different decisions in the same situation. It's impossible to decide something independent of the reality you have in your head and your relation to it. It would be akin to not hitting any numbers in a calculator and getting 4 as an answer.


BTW nice argument, you're wrong (jk), but nice argument :D:p

....but you are wrong lol

Yeah, well I'm getting really tired of repeating myself ad infinium. So you go be correct or something. I don't know- good luck with that.

[niKopol]

*cracks his knuckles*

You can't have true free will unless you are truely free. Free from the boundaries of the land, sex, color, preference and of course yourself.

You can get close, say you have two apples, ones red and the other is green. You can run around saying I have a green apple, the one and only apple. Sure the green apple tastes better, because of that you only choose green. Though the red apple is more mature and ripe, and doesn't taste as good, you choose not to believe in them or accept their being.

I don't usually like pushing my opinions onto others unless theirs is destructive in a sense. But you can choose whichever belief of this you want, the one that sounds great and cool or you can choose the more real, more believable version. There is no way to be %100 sure, but the odds point to MP2K's version being reality. So decide, instead of this petty bickering.

[manslayer101]

MHP2K, to sum up the point, a person whom made choices depending on their circumstances is proof that they made the choice depending on their will.

"What choice is "best" is deturmined by the chooser, based on what they know."

seeing as my grammar isn't much better than yours:

a persons will itself is based on what they know, they determine what they wish to do by basing all the situations they have run into in their life, and make it their will, once again:

Free Will: the act or process of using or asserting one's choice

this is a fact meaning that whether the person based it on past decisions and circumstances is not totally irrelevant, but that those factors created their will, call it what you want, but it is will.

"In order to defeat my statements, you have to prove (in the philosophical sense) that people will make choices they don't feel is best in any given context."

whether they find it best or not is irrelevant, i just explained this, people will choose what's best depending on the will they have created by gathering circumstances that have arisen in their lives, i did not say that they wouldn't make choices depending on what they feel is best, that IS their will.

another example: you are arguing with me right now about whether will exists or not, the very fact that you chose to not believe in will, and to assimilate that factor into your own will proves that you had the free will to choose to believe in it or not, despite your past experiences and circumstances, you created a will all your own in this matter, therefore you chose to act upon your own will and to counter my posts, therefore this very discussion is proof.

side note: wikipedia isn't a very stable resource for definitions on controversy because of the fact that it is a wiki and can be changed by individuals, whether the definition be true or not.

of course the you're wrong was a sarcastic joke, i was hoping to lighten the mood :p

[niKopol]

Free-will in my mind is doing something or a decision without thinking about it. To believe every thing you do is free-will is false. I am not saying that thats right or wrong. Its your freedom of choice.

[blackcatme]

i dunno, i think it exists

[manslayer101]

in other words, Kie:

an everyday choice: apples and oranges, depending on the situation

a choice of will: to start up a business without any previous experience, knowing it will make money even though it will take you 2+ years to make something in that business...

i was asked to represent a scenario in which a person makes a choice of will not based on their past experience:

a person is driving home one day, this person is will not wearing a seatbelt, and drives recklessly. The person begins to turn to the free way but failed to look at the cars surrounding them, a car smashes into that person's front end. The person survives the crash, but then conforms their will to another way, they will be safer when they drive....

a person lives one way all their life, it is what they know, their will is formed around a non-christian principle, however one day this person does go to church at the digression of a friend, the person, in church, changes their life because of a feeling they had in that service that strongly led them to change their life, and their will about living....

whether you are a christian, or believe in god or not, both scenarios happen all the time. These are two scenarios in which the way a person wills their life is changed around, in both cases they prove that a person has changed their will, meaning they made a choice based on their will. a person could have easily started doing the same thing they previously did (and most do) but the people in the scenarios both CHOSE to change because of what happened, this is not just a choice, it's a choice of will.