| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Do Humans Have Free Will |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 02:12 PM |
| Do You Believe in Free Will? Yes [ 24 ] [77.42%] No [ 4 ] [12.90%] Don't care [ 3 ] [9.68%] Total Votes: 31 |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 02:17 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Do Humans Have Free Will? Posted by: Emperor Norton II Dec 11 2003, 01:16 PM I've been reading about a 1700s philosopher named Holbach, who was an atheistic determinalist. I really like him, both as a person and a philosopher, and he proposes that no one is ever morally responsible for their actions, as people only ever act on their strongest desires.People don't chose which of their desires are strongest- they are the result of the influences of other people, our environment, genetics (although Holbach didn't know a whole lot about genetics, he'd use this if he were alive), etc. And so, Holbach says there's no Free Will. What do you guys think? Belief in Jesus as a primary factor for reward and punishment is ridiculous, since billions of people were never/aren't given Jesus as an option. But can we look at morality in general in the same light? Posted by: A Bleeding God Dec 11 2003, 02:39 PM I still say it exists. And you can't convince me otherwise Posted by: chefranden Dec 11 2003, 02:51 PM I voted yes, because I think that we have freewill within certain restraints. Many things normally thought to determine choice, actually only influence choice - culture for example. Once I have made a choice, say going to Mars, I have to act within the parameters of the physical universe to get there and survive. I don't have the choice to just start walking to get there and I don't have the choice to teleport there - the building of some sort of vessel is determined. We have a moral propensity that comes from our social nature. Unless we have a pathological defect we almost always act for the good of the group we feel we belong to. Lord help the group we don't belong to however! I think that the only way to have a morally just world is to find ways to exceed our biological limits on the size of the group we can identify with. I also think that a rule of law that most people could live with could be formed with the http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html as its base. Posted by: michelle Dec 11 2003, 07:38 PM Rodan, That guy said that "people dont chose which of their desires are strongest- they are the result of the influences of other people" This is exactly why Im not a joiner, especially ones with missions. You arent allowed to think for yourself in these places, at least not the sick cultish ones. I have grown so tired of being influenced by others. Its just not going to happen anymore. If the whole group wants to smoke pot, am I gonna smoke pot? No, I dont like the high. Thats just one example. Posted by: Matthew Dec 11 2003, 08:27 PM I think that humans do have free will. I think that if we were just the sum of our biochemical and cellular components we would have no free will. There would be no distinction between involuntary and voluntary organs. All behavior would be mechanical and deterministic. We would have no freedom to create, to enjoy, or to feel pain for that matter. We would simply operate like pre-programmed mechanical devices. In fact..I find it extremely odd that evolution would introduce a distinction between voluntary and involuntary organs. To me..the very fact that conciousness does exist..that we do have voluntary organs..bespeaks to me of an idealistic dimension or realm of existence that transcends our own and is a reason for my current advocacy of Deism. I think that if determinism is true..it would be impossible for us to lie. It would be impossible for us to come up with explanations that we know are not true or just want to cling to them because they are comfortable. If we were just mechanical and deterministic..our brains just might cataloge information..not attempt to explain it or make sense of information. To be very blunt..I think that people who deny free will are using the fallacy of the stolen concept: you have to presuppose the necessary consequences of a concept in order to deny it's roots. In this case..it would be someone saying "I choose (the necessary outcome of freewill) to believe that free will (the root concept) doesn't exist." The fallacy is an epistemological parasite. It's using dynamite to blow up 39 floors of a building while standing on the 40th floor. I have to conclude that free will exists..and that there is a cause underlying free will. I am led to conclude that there must exist some sort of inmaterial cause underlying conciousness that uses neurochemistry as a template and is irreducible to that neurochemistry. I believe that this cause is the mind and the ultimate source of this mind is what I deem to be the Prime Mind..which created the very matter that our minds use as a template. Matthew Posted by: chefranden Dec 11 2003, 08:42 PM Here is an interesting read on Free will and Epiphenomenalism or the Hypothesis that considers mental states to be a reflection of the same physical processes that give rise to behavior. It is about an experiment by Benjamin Libet that shows that movement of a finger preceeds the decision to move it. http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/libet.html Posted by: michelle Dec 11 2003, 08:48 PM huh? Dude you are too smart. Operate like pre-programmed mechanical devices? Jesus, Mary, & Joseph, Im glad my robot days are gone. Hey, where the hell were you when I was praying on my knees? lol Posted by: Matthew Dec 11 2003, 09:36 PM QUOTE huh? Dude you are too smart. Operate like pre-programmed mechanical devices? Jesus, Mary, & Joseph, Im glad my robot days are gone. Hey, where the hell were you when I was praying on my knees? lol I was thinking of making that one of my arguments for Deism. I know it's rather technical-sounding...but I have been thinking deeply like this for years. Matthew Posted by: Emperor Norton II Dec 11 2003, 10:12 PM QUOTE This is exactly why Im not a joiner, especially ones with missions The action to avoid joiners was motivated by other people- and therefore, not a decision of yours. Something bad happened, and it made your desire to avoid people stronger than your desire to join groups of them. Posted by: Doug2 Dec 11 2003, 11:53 PM Interesting. Are our thoughts the results of the chemicals and state of atoms in your brain or is it possible for our brain to come up with different conclusions while in the same state? If so, what causes these difference? Is it another state or matter or energy we are not yet measuring? If so, then that would still mean we don't have free will. On the other hand, maybe there is some random ability that matter has, that would give us an unpredictable outcome, much like the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. That would give us "free will", even if it really wasn't our will that controlled it, but some random process. I guess I am an undecided on this one. I voted no, but it does depend a bit on the definition. I think we will some day be able to create a computer that acts and thinks as if it were alive. (the Turing test) If you would consider that machine to not have free will, then neither would humans. Posted by: michelle Dec 12 2003, 01:41 PM Rodan, Okay, I'll buy that. But now it is up to me to prevent any more bad things from happening. You know, like the REALLY bad things... joining cults, going to psyche wards, the average every day stuff. And the little stuff, smoking pot out back of work just because everyone else is doing it. Maybe aquiring some sort of dependacy on it and becoming unmotivated. You know what really pisses me off some days? Being in a position of being 18 at 36. When, oh when will I GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: woodsmoke Dec 12 2003, 07:27 PM I'm being ignorant and stubborn on this one, but I voted that we do have free will. Biological and other factors shit aside, I CHOOSE to get up in the morning. I CHOOSE to take a shower and eat breakfast. I CHOOSE to go visit my folks--which, by the way, happens fairly often recently. As I said, the situation has improved immensely with separation and time. True, I know that there are consequences to not getting up and going to work, as are there consequences to not taking a shower or eating breakfast. Honestly, though, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE DEBATE! As far as I'm concerned, I decide these things, for whatever reason, and that's as complicated as it gets! 'Nuff said. Sorry, y'all, but I needed to . Posted by: Dhampir Dec 12 2003, 07:39 PM with us humans, there are absolutely NO needs. Just wants. Whether we have free will or not, that is true. Posted by: chefranden Dec 12 2003, 07:51 PM QUOTE (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) Need: 1. A state that requires supply or relief; pressing occasion for something; necessity; urgent want. 2. Want of the means of subsistence; poverty; indigence; destitution 3. That which is needful; anything necessary to be done QUOTE (Dhampir) with us humans, there are absolutely NO needs. Just wants. Whether we have free will or not, that is true. I think you needed to say that! Posted by: Dhampir Dec 12 2003, 07:58 PM I was kinda hopin you wouldn't agree with me so fast, guy. That's why I was so cryptic, I wanted to explain myself. Posted by: chefranden Dec 13 2003, 04:37 PM Sorry Posted by: BillJ Jan 5 2004, 01:06 AM QUOTE people only ever act on their strongest desires I don't think this is true, I have turned sex away from a girl who was underage, but that means that my strongest desire was to not have sex with this girl, which is not true at all. (My example isn't very good, but someone can probably do better.) I think we have choices in the matter, and desires only influence these choices. I can make a choice that is totally against what I feel, I have done this before. Ex. When I was kid I would take risks even though I knew they could be fatal, it doesn't mean I had the desire to injure myself and therefore act our on that desire, solely because it was stronger than my desire to avoid injury. Our desires only play a part in our decision making process, it actually plays the biggest part, but I think a strong human mind can make a decision based on facts and logic rather than their desires, but sometimes our decisions should be based on our desires, such as love for another human, we would obviously make choices based on that particular desire. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 5 2004, 05:45 AM Nice Avatar Dhampir - Vampire Hunter D! N-E-way, Free will is a given. For those whom say that god controls our lives in such a way that everything is decided and no free will exists and it is already set whom will go to heaven and whom to hell, they take the claim: "why do anything at all?" and respond with "Predestination does not preclude showing that you are not deserving of damnation in life." - Taking a few lessons from the puritains. Thanks alot Calvin. Posted by: moorezw Jan 5 2004, 09:23 AM It all depends on how you define "Free Will". If it means to operate outside of deliberate deistic manipulation, then yes, we do. If it means simply that each choice we make is completely up to our own whims, then no, we don't. "Free Will" in that sense is an illusion, but it is a potent illusion. I think that we each have a Will that is influenced by our genes and environment, and that Will determines our course through life. The illusion is created by the fact that few of us truly understand the complexity of our Will, and so many decisions seem uncharacteristic or even flippant, when their causes can, in fact, be well-understood. Posted by: I Broke Free Jan 5 2004, 10:24 AM It took me awhile find this information that I saw recently on a science program. It deals with how the brain initiates activity before we are even aware of our desire to do the activity. It does complicate the Free Will debate and I would enjoy your thoughts on this. Below is short excerpt followed by the website for a full explanation. When neurologists make patients' limbs jerk by electrically zapping certain regions of their brains, the patients often insist they meant to move that arm, and they even invent reasons why. Neurologists call these erroneous, post hoc explanations confabulations, but Dr. Wegner prefers the catchier "intention inventions." He suggests that whenever we explain our acts as the outcome of our conscious choice, we are engaging in intention invention, because our actions actually stem from countless causes of which we are completely unaware. He cites experiments in which subjects pushed a button whenever they chose while noting the time of their decision as displayed on a clock. The subjects took 0.2 seconds on average to push the button after they decided to do so. But an electroencephalograph monitoring their brain waves revealed that the subjects' brains generated a spike of brain activity 0.3 seconds before they decided to push the button. The meaning of these widely debated findings, Dr. Wegner says, is that our conscious willing is an afterthought, which "kicks in at some point after the brain has already started preparing for the action." http://www.sunysuffolk.edu/Web/Selden/Philosophy/LK/Issues/Freewill/BrainFree.txt Posted by: Dhampir Jan 5 2004, 11:42 AM QUOTE Nice Avatar Dhampir - Vampire Hunter D! Good taste! did you notice the correlation between my name and avatar? Anyway, the point I wanted to make earlier was that, as intelligent beings, we have no true needs. other animals can only suppress one need in light of a greater need. We on the other hand, only must do something if we WANT something. you need to eat if you WANT to avoid hunger pains, you have to drink water if you don't WANT to die of dehydration, etc. Anybody agree? As for free will, I didn't vote, cause none of the choices fit completely with my way of thinking. I mean, even factoring what I just said, our actions are still determined by certain stimuli and internal impulses, so FREE will may simply be an illusion. I was reading a science mag, one day, wherein a scientist asserted that it was possible that we live in a 2 dimensional reality, and that we constantly delude ourselves into thinking it has three dimensions. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 5 2004, 12:31 PM QUOTE (Dhampir @ Jan 5 2004, 02:42 PM) QUOTE Nice Avatar Dhampir - Vampire Hunter D! Good taste! did you notice the correlation between my name and avatar? --------- Anyway, the point I wanted to make earlier was that, as intelligent beings, we have no true needs. other animals can only suppress one need in light of a greater need. We on the other hand, only must do something if we WANT something. you need to eat if you WANT to avoid hunger pains, you have to drink water if you don't WANT to die of dehydration, etc. Anybody agree? actually no, not untill you mentioned it - vampir the fledgeling vampire mix There is nothing to say an animal may not have a similar impulse. It's not as if you can ask the more evolved animals (Whales, dolphins, and apes I should think). Humans still have instinct. When you duck without thinking, that's an instinctive move. The basic needs, water, food, and companionship are all controlled by instinct. You don't just wake up one day and decide you won't be hungry since you don't want food. Your body will make you want it. Ditto for the other impulses. Posted by: Dhampir Jan 5 2004, 01:00 PM QUOTE You don't just wake up one day and decide you won't be hungry since you don't want food. Your body will make you want it. Ditto for the other impulses. The 1st sentence is true, but the second misses my point. See, what makes us different from other animals is that our mental functions are far more advanced than even the second most intelligent animals in nature. We also have more of them as well, ie. precognition of mortality (animals only think about death when it is near). Your body can make you want, but unlike other animals, we can deny it, without some higher need replacing it, therefore, we have no true needs, mere wants. You eat 'cause you want the hunger pains to abate, right? Need is a mere human delusion, 'cause we can deny any and everything we consider a need, difficult though that may be. Posted by: Lokmer Jan 5 2004, 01:15 PM We obviously have the capacity to override our own natural impulses and desires for whatever reason. I think the problem in the crux of this debate comes from the definition of free will, and in the mixing of perspectives. Libertarian free will (absolute freedom of choice) is obviously an illusion - we are beset on all sides by influences both physical and sociological. On the other hand, physical determinism tends to minimize the causality problems introduced by chaos mechanics, mind/brain construction properties, and sociological factors. But when mind is viewed as an emergent property of the brain (which it seems to be), then we are faced with the possibility that we have a genuine both/and situation concerning free will. We have a will, we have freedom of choice in that will, but that will is beset on all sides by influences both physiological and sociological that diminish the available choices. So we are left with free will within certain parameters in any given situation. At least, that's where I'm at in the thinking process right now. -Lokmer Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 5 2004, 01:15 PM QUOTE (Dhampir @ Jan 5 2004, 04:00 PM) We also have more of them as well, ie. precognition of mortality (animals only think about death when it is near). Your body can make you want, but unlike other animals, we can deny it, without some higher need replacing it, therefore, we have no true needs, mere wants. You eat 'cause you want the hunger pains to abate, right? Need is a mere human delusion, 'cause we can deny any and everything we consider a need, difficult though that may be. Again, we really don't know what they are thinking about. A few books I have read tend to agree that a true show of sentiance is the burying of one's dead, but that might be difficult for non-land based creatures. An animal will also feel pain and "want" it to go away, all be it on a lower level. You might also realize that you can only deny things to a point, in which the instinct to satisfy the need takes over. In this situation think of a child who tells you he will hold his breath until he dies but that will only last until he passes out, if he gets that far, and were one to pass out, what really keeps you breathing then? Not really a want. As for hunger, people can go mad with hunger or thirst, and mindlessly fill the desire. (not trying to be critical, really, just arguing for the fun of it) I'm such a devil's advocate Posted by: Dhampir Jan 5 2004, 01:46 PM QUOTE (not trying to be critical, really, just arguing for the fun of it) s'okay, just sharpening my debating skills. QUOTE An animal will also feel pain and "want" it to go away, all be it on a lower level. True, but that isn't a need, you don't need for it to go away. I'm not saying animals don't have base wants. QUOTE You might also realize that you can only deny things to a point, in which the instinct to satisfy the need takes over. In this situation think of a child who tells you he will hold his breath until he dies but that will only last until he passes out, if he gets that far, and were one to pass out, what really keeps you breathing then? Not really a want. people do things in relation to what it can accomplish or not accomplish. You know you'd pass out by not breathing, obviously the kid doesn't. you breathe because you don't want to pass out, not 'cause you think it will kill you. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I can't seem to word my thoughts right. Everything about you that you are voluntarily in control of, you do or don't do because of a 'perceived need'. We as humans can override them, proving that they aren't necessary. It may be difficult, but it can be done. Even involuntary functions (brain activities, heart beat,etc.) are under the control of our wants in a way. I mean, we can't control it, but you abstain from putting a bullet in your brain, or poisoning yourself because you don't WANT to die. True, you can go out of your mind in order for the body to accomplish things It (not you, there's a difference) needs, but that is rare. Even then, it can be overridden, you can chain yourself to a pipe for instance. you don't 'cause you don't WANT to be unable to eat, understand? There is no "need" that can't be tied to a "want" I don't think. Try to find one, I bet I can prove it wrong. Need is a human delusion. Posted by: Huh? Jan 5 2004, 06:47 PM QUOTE The meaning of these widely debated findings, Dr. Wegner says, is that our conscious willing is an afterthought, which "kicks in at some point after the brain has already started preparing for the action." What I thought. From my point of view, everything is feeling (DUH!). You feel that light from your computer monitor. It is from that feeling that you assume the monitor is there with its shape. Logically, (geometricaly) the monitor IS there with that shape at that distance. About free will. Well, its also a feeling. Is it something else? No. You feel the choices: the ideas emerged in your brain, in a dtermined way. You feel one of them is took: like the monitor, the taking of a choice is real but still uncontrolled, still determined. Our brains are of atoms and atoms are atoms. They react in a deterministic (or part random if you're in quantum physic) way and the brain is no exeption. So anyways, you just feel your choice. I choose to not believe in freewill, or to be more specific, I feel that way. And those studies shows that the choice (the feeling of a choice) emerge after the action was determined... interesting. Not-so-Free will is one of the main reasons why I reject such concepts as christianity. Posted by: Huh? Jan 5 2004, 06:50 PM QUOTE We would simply operate like pre-programmed mechanical devices. We do. Anybody else think consciousness is a natural property of matter? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 5 2004, 06:53 PM QUOTE (Huh? @ Jan 5 2004, 09:50 PM) Anybody else think consciousness is a natural property of matter? one word: Rocks. Posted by: Huh? Jan 5 2004, 06:55 PM QUOTE We think of will as a force, but actually, Dr. Wegner says, it is a feeling - "merely a feeling," as he puts it - of control over our actions. I think, "I'm going to get up now," and when I do a moment later, I credit that feeling with having been the instigating cause. But as we all know, correlation does not equal causation. DUH! Lol. I hold to this belief since I'm 12. Feel weird. Posted by: Huh? Jan 5 2004, 06:56 PM QUOTE QUOTE (Huh? @ Jan 5 2004, 09:50 PM) Anybody else think consciousness is a natural property of matter? one word: Rocks. We are part made of "rocks". All your atoms are replaced in your lifetime. So I guess consciousness is a natural property of all matter and just patterns matter in shaping it. No? Posted by: Dhampir Jan 5 2004, 08:46 PM I don't think consciousness is the natural state of matter, but then I don't think life, at least physical life, is a normal state of existence. Posted by: serenity_Paz Jan 7 2004, 08:49 AM Yes we have free will, that is what makes life so hard sometimes. Also if we don't then why be angry or punish people for crimes, after all, it isn't their fault if they aren't free to choose. On the other hand, I also think that there are so many things trying to influence our behavior that sometimes we don't fully understand why we do some of the things we do. Posted by: chefranden Jan 7 2004, 06:11 PM QUOTE (serenity_Paz @ Jan 7 2004, 10:49 AM) Also if we don't then why be angry or punish people for crimes, after all, it isn't their fault if they aren't free to choose. Because we can't help it. We just have to! Posted by: brij Jan 10 2004, 09:25 AM Personally I don’t believe in freewill, I cant see how its possible, as human beings everything affects us, so we are not free. BUT i do believe we have the ‘will’ not the freewill but ‘will’, I believe we make our own decisions based on what has affected us in our lives, I believe we are responsible for our actions either if right or wrong. I believe we have the power to make our future what we want it to be. Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |