TTI Forums

That just got dumber and dumber toward the end. But I have to say i believe that (unless in quantum physics where the laws of physics are skewed/ work in a different way), we really dont have free will, because if every single variable is accounted for, there is only one outcome. The fact that the human brain works with so many variables, with billions of neurons firing away constantly, makes human reactions unpredictable enough that we can basically say its free will. So free will exists, but only as long as its impossible to keep track/calculate/ or predict all the variables involved in a sentient being making a decision.

Does this make sense?

Airiek wrote:That just got dumber and dumber toward the end. But I have to say i believe that (unless in quantum physics where the laws of physics are skewed/ work in a different way), we really dont have free will, because if every single variable is accounted for, there is only one outcome. The fact that the human brain works with so many variables, with billions of neurons firing away constantly, makes human reactions unpredictable enough that we can basically say its free will. So free will exists, but only as long as its impossible to keep track/calculate/ or predict all the variables involved in a sentient being making a decision.

Does this make sense?

You're joking, right?

Airiek wrote:That just got dumber and dumber toward the end. But I have to say i believe that (unless in quantum physics where the laws of physics are skewed/ work in a different way), we really dont have free will, because if every single variable is accounted for, there is only one outcome. The fact that the human brain works with so many variables, with billions of neurons firing away constantly, makes human reactions unpredictable enough that we can basically say its free will. So free will exists, but only as long as its impossible to keep track/calculate/ or predict all the variables involved in a sentient being making a decision.

Does this make sense?

I have actually considered that possibility a few times. But if thats the way it actually is, the minute details have got to be WAAAAY over our heads.

But either way its negligible. I see no problem entertaining possibilities, but the fact remains that we have the ability to view things from different angles and act accordingly, something that most life on Earth can't do. The end result is we have the ability to make decisions on our own, or the illusion thereof, whether via free will or the "ultra-complex-grandfather-clock" doesn't matter.

It's like the glass half full/empty deal, it's a matter or perspective. One is just more optimistic than the other.

BOS Hydra wrote:I have actually considered that possibility a few times. But if thats the way it actually is, the minute details have got to be WAAAAY over our heads.

But either way its negligible. I see no problem entertaining possibilities, but the fact remains that we have the ability to view things from different angles and act accordingly, something that most life on Earth can't do. The end result is we have the ability to make decisions on our own, or the illusion thereof, whether via free will or the "ultra-complex-grandfather-clock" doesn't matter.

It's like the glass half full/empty deal, it's a matter or perspective. One is just more optimistic than the other.

Wrong. Glass half full/empty is two ways of describing the same objective reality. Saying the glass is half empty describes one part of the glass and saying it is half full describes the second half. It's the same thing as saying a green and white shirt is half green, or half white. What Airek described would be saying that a half-full glass is actually an elephant. Reality is not a matter of perspective. It IS.

There are no truths more basic or important than the objective nature of reality and the fact of free will. It's logically impossible to come up with an argument that negates free will because you must first possess it in order to make the argument that it does not exist! Do you seriously mean to suggest that it's possible that you are being controlled by someone else, or that you cannot perceive the "real" reality? If so, then you need to find another corp. Nothing could be more antithetical to what we believe; it is just as ridiculous as an atheist being a member of an evangelical christian church, if not more so.

What I am saying is that the way everything in the past that has happened, and they way everything in the future will happen, is the only way it can happen right up from the beginning of the universe. It is like a function in math f(x)=y, you can have the same y value for multiple x values but x can not have 2 y values. x is the independant variable and can not have two outcomes, otherwise it is not a function. So free will is ultimately an illusion. The only thing is at that scale - saying that if EVERYTHING is considered the future is predetermined logically - it is irrelevant to think about because while it is true, there is nothing you can do about it, and frankly it is overwhelming to think about, despite the fact that whatever you happen to be doing was lead up to by a logical sequence of events (once you get in that kind of thinking though - that you can only be doing what you are doing - you can get stuck in a loop and DARN IT IM STUCK - try it for a bit, and if you do it tickles the brain in a weird way).

I cut alot of stuff that I wrote - and if somethings dont match up, its because I missed editing them, because I write as I am thinking about it, and so change my view ultimately - first I wanted to say that I was wrong and talk about theoretical "soul", then I thought - hey thats what I was thinking. I will gladly accept if you show me I am still wrong.

I am editing again because I am out of that loop and can say that once I have left it, I can think about the logic and say it doesn't bother me that I must be doing this - I guess every action has an opposite reaction. I think that the mind has a natural aversion to that pattern of thinking because its counter productive.

Honestly - BOTTOM LINE: Free will may ultimately be an illusion but it is irrelevant to life - dont even try and think about it. FREE WILL IS REAL AS FAR AS IT MATTERS CONCERNS US.

*Edit: In my original post I left myself open to rebuttal on the topic of free will not being in conflict to the law of entropy. I've fixed that. Free will does have the potential to someday reverse entropy on a macro-scale, but we're nowhere near that yet.

Bullshit. See, I just typed that. I typed that because I wanted to type it, not because cosmological energy sources originating in the big bang forced me to. Look at what it takes to produce the computer you're using to read this message and tell me if the law of entropy holds up in that system. On the scale of the universe does the free will of a few billion organisms residing on a single planet in a single galaxy reverse the macro-entropy of the entire cosmological system? No, of course not, (not YET, in any meaningful manner, anyway). But your actions/thoughts/will are not predetermined by the energy originating from the point-space expansion singularity however many trillion years ago. That's utter garbage. Macro-entropy does not preclude local reverse-entropy. People can do whatever the hell they want to. To say otherwise is to negate morality and reality itself. I can think of no more immoral philosophy than the brand of pseudo-scientific hyper-Calvinism you seem to be espousing.

What is free will? The interesting argument I heard that supposedly negates free will is that a person either bases their choices on outside stimuli, or they don't. If they do base their choices on outside stimuli, then they have no control over the stimuli, and thus their choice is predetermined. If they don't base their choice on outside stimuli, then their choice is completely random and thus not really free. The big note on this argument is that the way you make your decisions, the way you interpret outside stimuli, and so on, is still outside of your control. It comes from learned behavior that other, outside influences (parents, school, genetics, social interaction) taught you, and thus that you have no control over.

I thought it was an interesting argument, until I realized the horrible, horrible flaw within it. What does it mean to have free will? The definition is what really will decide the quality of the above argument, and I have never in my life seen an actual explanation of what 'free will' is accompanying said argument.

That being said, I do appreciate what Nozick wrote in "Philosophical Explanations" concerning this topic. He takes the stance of a rather grumpy old man and says that it's a dumb argument because even if you accept the above argument, it's completely indistuingishable from whatever free will might be. Nice argument to pull out around friends and family who aren't intellectually interested and end it decisively.

Afndayle wrote:What is free will? The interesting argument I heard that supposedly negates free will is that a person either bases their choices on outside stimuli, or they don't. If they do base their choices on outside stimuli, then they have no control over the stimuli, and thus their choice is predetermined. If they don't base their choice on outside stimuli, then their choice is completely random and thus not really free. The big note on this argument is that the way you make your decisions, the way you interpret outside stimuli, and so on, is still outside of your control. It comes from learned behavior that other, outside influences (parents, school, genetics, social interaction) taught you, and thus that you have no control over.

I thought it was an interesting argument, until I realized the horrible, horrible flaw within it. What does it mean to have free will? The definition is what really will decide the quality of the above argument, and I have never in my life seen an actual explanation of what 'free will' is accompanying said argument.

That being said, I do appreciate what Nozick wrote in "Philosophical Explanations" concerning this topic. He takes the stance of a rather grumpy old man and says that it's a dumb argument because even if you accept the above argument, it's completely indistuingishable from whatever free will might be. Nice argument to pull out around friends and family who aren't intellectually interested and end it decisively.

Arguments like that make absolutely stupid assumptions about value judgments. It's like saying you have a choice between an apple, or an orange. It ignores the fact that apples and oranges are not mutually-exclusive entities. You can choose both.

Free will is the property of a human to make moral judgments based on both induction and deduction. Not one to the exclusion of the other. When you make a choice, it is based both on outside stimulus and your internal philosophy. Philosophy is derived by interaction with reality, and a moral philosophy is one that is in accordance with the fundamental nature of that reality.

Petyr Baelich wrote:When you make a choice, it is based both on outside stimulus and your internal philosophy. Philosophy is derived by interaction with reality, and a moral philosophy is one that is in accordance with the fundamental nature of that reality.

That's the problem, though, that the argument tries to assault. Your philosophy is based on outside stimuli. The very interaction with reality is what 'taints' the philosophy away from free will, if you will.

Airiek wrote:I cut alot of stuff that I wrote - and if somethings dont match up, its because I missed editing them, because I write as I am thinking about it, and so change my view ultimately - first I wanted to say that I was wrong and talk about theoretical "soul", then I thought - hey thats what I was thinking. I will gladly accept if you show me I am still wrong.

I meant about the current post i was making - before i actually submitted, and afterward i only edited once to add something.

But to the point -

Petyr Baelich wrote:I can think of no more immoral philosophy than the brand of pseudo-scientific hyper-Calvinism you seem to be espousing.

It very well may be pseudo-scientific as I simply used my logical thinking, such as the math example I gave above. So it is not based on anything specific.

And forgive my lack of knowledge, but I only learned what entropy meant in chemistry less than a month ago, and while I can deduce what you mean by macro and local entropy - could you still explain your counter arguement in layman's terms?

Another thing is is my basic point right? even if its irrelevant? - just curious, I don't care to get into debate over this question.

Lastly, there seems something hurried in th way you write compared to other peoples responses, it makes your arguement seem more emotional. And if that is the case, you seem to be the most passionate person on the topic here. Instead of responding as people submit their ideas, could you post a link to where you get your whole idea from or otherwise explain fully to clear confusion and logically show how free will works, why it exists, what causes free will...
(I don't see a reason to disagree with anything you said, but I am probably just confused and would simply like to get the whole picture clearly.)

Correct me if I am wrong Airiek, but I think much, of not all, of what Petyr is saying is derived from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged, and/or other books Ayn Rand has written on the subject of free will. But that speech is like the cornerstone of nearly all of her ideas.


And Petyr, I think you are assuming things that I didn't say or failed to cover, but I also think I wasn't quite clear in my previous post. I think I was tired when I made it.

What I meant is, IF in fact we don't have free will and the universe is some crazy complex clockwork, the end result (our reality) is so complex that we might as well be considered to have free will. My main counter point to the clockwork universe is consciousness (or free will, whatever). If its just clockwork and levers, why do we perceive it? Now theres another question that arises, where did free will come from? But that question doesn't have much relevance at this moment.

My view is that, we have the choice to view the glass as half full or half empty. One IS more optimistic than the other (depending on the lens (personality/philosophy) it is judged by.) But you are also right, they are different ways of describing our reality. What I am saying is it does matter how you look at reality because it affects your sense of judgment.

And I never said anything about being controlled by anyone or not perceiving reality. In the clockwork universe, maybe by some supreme being. But what I meant to say was, depending on your view of reality, you could be susceptible to allowing yourself to be controlled by others. If you have a more pessimistic view you potentially make yourself vulnerable to submitting to other people's will, and perhaps not being able to cope with your choices which could result in denying reality, or parts of it. You have a lower self esteem, which is the root of both of those issues.

I admire your passion and zeal, I just hope you are not closed minded is all

For the most part I agree with what you just said above. The only thing I was trying to say is free will exists as far as life concerned/its relevant to life because life is meaningless without it <- I agree with that. And I added that at some physical scale it doesnt exist because the outcome of something can not be different than what would logically be derived from the input. The universe though, is at such great scales that that is irrelevant to the matter that doesnt exist on the sub atomic scale, because to living things there is enough of an element of chance, and impossibility to know - that we can say have free will.

Lack of free will = incapable of rational thought, a slave to impulses we have no control over. Humans are quite capable of realizing they should/shouldn't do something, but having the impulse to do the opposite. Take an obese person, for example. He likes bacon - he knows he shouldn't eat it. He have a desire to eat it, a physical desire they don't have any control over feeling. But he can *choose* to stop eating bacon, because he decides it is for the best. It may not be easy, but he can do it.

Let's say he fails the first time he tries to quit. Not surprising - a lot of people fail the first time. So what does he do? He uses the power of rational thought to find a way to overcome his problem. He does research, buys some dieting books, hires a personal trainer, whatever. This sort of thing is what sets us apart from animals. You can't convince a dog that eating too much bacon is unhealthy and will result in obesity and an early death - even if the dog realized this, it would be unable to overcome its desire and stop eating.

A quote;

"That something happened to you is of no importance to anyone, not even to you. The important thing about you is what you choose to make happen - your values and choices. That which happened by accident - what family you were born into, in what country, and where you went to school - is totally unimportant. - Ayn Rand"

The fact that the human brain works with so many variables, with billions of neurons firing away constantly, makes human reactions unpredictable enough that we can basically say its free will. So free will exists, but only as long as its impossible to keep track/calculate/ or predict all the variables involved in a sentient being making a decision.

The "cosmic coincidence" thing doesn't really hold water, because it leaves out the most important thing: rational thought. Sure, I have no control over who I was born, or what happens next. But I am a logical, rational person. I can make decisions based on what I know, and act accordingly. You can predict the response an animal will have to a certain situation - for instance, upon spotting something tasty, the dog will run into a straight line for it and devour it ASAP. You can even predict the actions of a rational being; for instance, put that tasty treat in a steel trap, and don't be surprised if the human doesn't go for it. But can you predict that Ayn Rand would have written Atlas Shrugged? That the computer would be what it is today? The man on the moon? The Statue of Liberty?

Yes yes, I agree. I was just trying to get at the fact that whatever happens happens, and technically could not have happened any other way.
I guess the best addressing of this is what Petyr says here to think about it, I was tired when I first read it, but looking at it now, after sleep I get it:

Petyr Baelich wrote: On the scale of the universe does the free will of a few billion organisms residing on a single planet in a single galaxy reverse the macro-entropy of the entire cosmological system? No, of course not, (not YET, in any meaningful manner, anyway). But your actions/thoughts/will are not predetermined by the energy originating from the point-space expansion singularity however many trillion years ago. Macro-entropy does not preclude local reverse-entropy. People can do whatever the hell they want to. To say otherwise is to negate morality and reality itself.

which is a good point, so I guess I'll just leave it at that.

But just to have a question about the quote from the Ayn Rand quote "That something happened to you is of no importance to anyone, not even to you. The important thing about you is what you choose to make happen - your values and choices. That which happened by accident - what family you were born into, in what country, and where you went to school - is totally unimportant. - Ayn Rand"
- Does this, or rather can this, by any chance include past decisions? Meaning that the present is what is most important? or just events that were out of your control?
If past decisions is unimportant that would say that the choices you make know are what are important, the ones in the past are just what led you to your current options.

Airiek, if present decisions matter, so do past ones. What Rand is saying is that as far as your philosophy is concerned, events outside of your control should not contribute to your assessment of self. Growing up in a communist country where you are punished for your virtue does not make you evil. Having traumatic events happen in your childhood is not a reflection on your own character. Only things under your control fall under the purview of morality. Morality is based on free will and a human's ability to focus, think, judge, and choose/act, in that order.

Kushan's post is excellent, btw. I'm sorry if mine was a bit technical, I've had many philosophic discussions on this topic and I tend to fall back into arguments that have worked for me in the past. If you didn't understand anything, just ask. The important thing is that free will is very very real, and incontrovertible. It is not an illusion caused by complexity, people who think that can do extremely evil things because they're essentially denying reality. If we do not have free will then anything we do is outside of our control and therefore amoral, (neither good nor bad). This is why that argument is so dangerous, and why I am so passionately against it.

cool (and I chose to say that - and I chose to say that - and I chose to say that - and I chose to say that - and I chose to say that - )

I was just trying to get at the fact that whatever happens happens, and technically could not have happened any other way.

Being predictable doesn't mean it's an "illusion." You can predict that if someone put a giant mousetrap outside my home and baited it with cheese, I probably wouldn't walk right into it. Why? Because it would be stupid. Unlike animals, we aren't complete slaves to our impulses and limited intellect. Hence, free will. There is no, "chemicals in my brain say to walk into the mousetrap, I am powerless to disobey."

Mod notice: topic split

Kushan wrote:

I was just trying to get at the fact that whatever happens happens, and technically could not have happened any other way.

Being predictable doesn't mean it's an "illusion." You can predict that if someone put a giant mousetrap outside my home and baited it with cheese, I probably wouldn't walk right into it. Why? Because it would be stupid. Unlike animals, we aren't complete slaves to our impulses and limited intellect. Hence, free will. There is no, "chemicals in my brain say to walk into the mousetrap, I am powerless to disobey."

To be fair I think you should also mention that there is no "chemicals in my brain say not to walk into the mousetrap, I am powerless to disobey" either. Just mentioning one side is a bit biased.

BOS Hydra wrote:

Kushan wrote:

I was just trying to get at the fact that whatever happens happens, and technically could not have happened any other way.

Being predictable doesn't mean it's an "illusion." You can predict that if someone put a giant mousetrap outside my home and baited it with cheese, I probably wouldn't walk right into it. Why? Because it would be stupid. Unlike animals, we aren't complete slaves to our impulses and limited intellect. Hence, free will. There is no, "chemicals in my brain say to walk into the mousetrap, I am powerless to disobey."

To be fair I think you should also mention that there is no "chemicals in my brain say not to walk into the mousetrap, I am powerless to disobey" either. Just mentioning one side is a bit biased.

If chemicals in your brain have no effect on free will, then they have no effect on free will. Saying that they cannot force you to do things implies that they cannot force you not to do things either. When I say something is blue, do I also have to say: It is not red, it is not green, it is not yellow... ?

*Edit: And by the way, wtf is wrong with being biased, anyway? You sound like a relativist when you say that. I'm biased towards truth and against bullshit. Tolerance of views/actions you feel are incorrect is almost as bad as doing those things yourself. I don't mean you have to go out and shoot people you disagree with, obviously that would constitute first use of force, but you don't have to make their immoral lives easier either.

I find it amusing that anyone would choose to argue a point about free will. Every time you choose to make this argument disproves determinism immediately.

I was wondering when you'd show up. ;p

I think the key here is that having infinite knowledge of the universe/omniscience would only entail prediction of what someone is going to do. You could use this knowledge to influence someone's actions, but that is an interaction between that person's and your own free will. Not a negation of free will, but an expression of free will. An example of this can be seen in The Fountainhead, and the actions of Elsworth Toohey. Elsworth is not omniscient, but he does possess a keen understanding of the behavior of the people around him and used this knowledge to influence events for his own purposes.

Calthrop wrote:I think the key here is that having infinite knowledge of the universe/omniscience would only entail prediction of what someone is going to do. You could use this knowledge to influence someone's actions, but that is an interaction between that person's and your own free will. Not a negation of free will, but an expression of free will. An example of this can be seen in The Fountainhead, and the actions of Elsworth Toohey. Elsworth is not omniscient, but he does possess a keen understanding of the behavior of the people around him and used this knowledge to influence events for his own purposes.

My, this is getting far afield of it's origins. In other words, it is only theoretically possible to have complete knowledge of the past, not the present or future. Consciousness is infinite, but your brain is not.

Next someone will bring up "thinking" robots and supercomputers and we'll have that discussion all over again.

the only problem with a computer is garbage in garbage out.