Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Free Will (hint: you don't got it)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Free Will (hint: you don't got it) - Page 3

post #31 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Why is Style Forum particularly prone to threads like "Prove or disprove for me something that the world's greatest philosophers have been unable to resolve for 2,500 years"? Or, my personal favorite, "I have solved problem X which eluded every great mind from Socrates to Heidegger!"
Because it's fun? Killjoy. Go read about 1800s naval battles. Maybe that will get you hard.
post #32 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Why is Style Forum particularly prone to threads like "Prove or disprove for me something that the world's greatest philosophers have been unable to resolve for 2,500 years"? Or, my personal favorite, "I have solved problem X which eluded every great mind from Socrates to Heidegger!"
I wouldn't say it has eluded them; after all they did provide some answers. I think you're a fan of Spinoza and he would be among the deterministic peeps (for example). In a sense the answer is irrelevent but the question isn't.
post #33 of 122
an interesting article, click the link to read the rest.
Quote:
Scientists say free will probably doesn't exist, but urge: "Don't stop believing!" Suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine that you have agreed, as a secret agent in some confidential military operation, to travel back in time to the year 1894. To your astonishment, it’s a success! And now—after wiping away the magical time-travelling dust from your eyes—you find yourself on the fringes of some Bavarian village, hidden in a camouflaging thicket of wilderness against the edge of town, the distant, disembodied voices of nineteenth-century Germans mingling atmospherically with the unmistakable sounds of church bells. Quickly, you survey your surroundings: you seem to be directly behind a set of old row houses; white linens have been hung out to dry; a little stream tinkles behind you; windows have been opened to let in the warm springtime air. How quaint. No one else appears to be about, although occasionally you glimpse a pedestrian passing between the narrow gaps separating the houses. And then you notice him. There’s a quiet, solemn-looking little boy nearby, playing quietly with some toys in the dirt. He looks to be about six years old—a mere kindergartner, in the modern era. It’s then that you’re reminded of your mission: this is the town of Passau in Southern Germany. And that’s no ordinary little boy. It’s none other than young Adolph Hitler. What would you do next? This scenario is, rather unfortunately for us, in the realm of science fiction. But your answer to this hypothetical question—and others like it—is a matter for psychological scientists, because among other things it betrays your underlying assumptions about whether Hitler, and the decisions he made later in his life, were simply the product of his environment acting on his genes or whether he could have acted differently by exerting his “free will.” Most scientists in this area aren’t terribly concerned over whether or not free will does or doesn’t exist, but rather how people’s everyday reasoning about free will, particularly in the moral domain, influences their social behaviors and attitudes. (In fact, the Templeton Foundation has just launched a massive funding initiative designed to support scientific research on the subject of free will.)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...y-d-2010-04-06
post #34 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
I wouldn't say it has eluded them; after all they did provide some answers. I think you're a fan of Spinoza and he would be among the deterministic peeps (for example).

No.
post #35 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
I am eager for somebody to disprove me without using God in the argument.

Here is why I personally don't believe we have free will. I came up with this when I was 17. Yes, I was an early David Hume, or whichever 18th century philosopher it is that stole these ideas from me.

In the absence of quantum mechanics: Physical objects abide by physical laws. We are physical objects. Our minds are physical objects, though complex ones. Even on an atomic level, every movement or transformation of matter or energy is a result of a scientifically-explainable reaction.

Rephrased: Assuming the world is 5 billion or infinity years old (have your pick), if time froze at this exact second, given the sequence of events that have occurred in those 5 billion years up to this instant, if I unfroze time for one frame, the next frame could be perfectly predicted given the laws that govern matter and energy. The same could be said of any one instance, and put together, this equals determinism.

Sometimes you think about things and feel you are making decisions, but in a very complex way these decision are already made. Your mind was on a path all along to struggle with a concept and hum and haw and waffle and finally make a decision going one way. It feels like free will, but it isn't under the definition here because it was guaranteed to happen that way before you even gave it any thought.

With quantum mechanics: Someone will have to pipe in here as I never took a science class past high school. But either:

a) Randomness occurs on such a submicroscopic level that it does not affect the visible/tangible physical world to which the determinism described above applies to.
b) Randomness does in some ways affect our world, but in a random way. In other words, my or your "willpower" and "thought" has no effect on particles that may behave unpredictably. In fact, it is the other way around. So while before, everything was deterministic, it is now deterministic with a pinch of randomness. Not much better.

In conclusion, regardless of the world being deterministic or random, there is no free will.

Eager to hear thoughts.

Metro: I agree that the brain's low-level functions are governed in predictable ways, but aren't these processes at least partly formed by early-age stimulus/response learning? And in the stimulus/reponse model, you develop a set of behaviors to elicit desired responses: children cry when hungry/cold/wet.

I may be staking myself to a rather tenuous limb here, but if your behaviors in early life are molded by stimulus/response and patterning... what do you do when faced with the unknown? You can extrapolate or seek social proof (or neither, or even both), but even then that decision between the two puts you into the realm of free will, since you've not developed the mechanism of dealing with uncertainty.
post #36 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
Go read about 1800s naval battles.
What's wrong with that? And obscure medieval ones too (ever heard of the epic expedition of Subutai in 1220? It's a personal favourite of mine).
post #37 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
No.

Fack, I thought you were. I like him more than Socrates that's for sure...

Anyway he's an example of determinism.
post #38 of 122
You should probably read up on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Here's a list of different theories of Quantum Mechanics and their take on the Freedom of the will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ics#Comparison
post #39 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamish5178 View Post

For the plebes, I'll try to dumb it down:

Thanks, perfesser!
post #40 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post
Metro: I agree that the brain's low-level functions are governed in predictable ways, but aren't these processes at least partly formed by early-age stimulus/response learning? And in the stimulus/reponse model, you develop a set of behaviors to elicit desired responses: children cry when hungry/cold/wet.

I may be staking myself to a rather tenuous limb here, but if your behaviors in early life are molded by stimulus/response and patterning... what do you do when faced with the unknown? You can extrapolate or seek social proof (or neither, or even both), but even then that decision between the two puts you into the realm of free will, since you've not developed the mechanism of dealing with uncertainty.

It goes a lot further than stimulus/response. A lot of our emotions and finer sentiments have been show to be a direct result of hormone secretion (endocrinology). Everything from feelings of empathy and love to those of horniness to tiredness to the lack of ability to feel emotion,etc.
post #41 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
Fack, I thought you were. I like him more than Socrates that's for sure...

Anyway he's an example of determinism.

I read him because I had to. Derivative of Nick and Nick is better. I definitely prefer Socrates.

Writing a paper now in which Spinoza may figure. No money in it. Sigh.
post #42 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
It goes a lot further than stimulus/response. A lot of our emotions and finer sentiments have been show to be a direct result of hormone secretion (endocrinology). Everything from feelings of empathy and love to those of horniness to tiredness to the lack of ability to feel emotion,etc.

Since you bring that up, and I'm too lazy/busy to google and verify for myself (should really be my standard disclaimer), aren't the endocrinological responses governed at least partly by a cognitive component? Take, for instance, adrenaline. If Kwilk, for instance, holds a knife pointed at me, I'm less likely to have the same response than I would if it were someone I didn't know.
post #43 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post
Since you bring that up, and I'm too lazy/busy to google and verify for myself (should really be my standard disclaimer), aren't the endocrinological responses governed at least partly by a cognitive component? Take, for instance, adrenaline. If Kwilk, for instance, holds a knife pointed at me, I'm less likely to have the same response than I would if it were someone I didn't know.

Yep, true.
post #44 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I read him because I had to. Derivative of Nick and Nick is better. I definitely prefer Socrates.

Writing a paper now in which Spinoza may figure. No money in it. Sigh.

Machiavelli is, to me, a minor thinker compared to the giant that is Spinoza. I'm not that interested in both though, although I did use Mr. Machiavelli recently (and was paid for it).
post #45 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
Machiavelli is, to me, a minor thinker compared to the giant that is Spinoza. I'm not that interested in both though, although I did use Mr. Machiavelli recently (and was paid for it).

You are wrong, then. Spinoza is minor compared to Nick. Benedict was himself the first to admit that his thought is derivative. Bacon was also forthright about that. So was Descartes. Others (Hobbes, for instance) chose to either cover it up or lie to themselves about it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Free Will (hint: you don't got it)