Could... if I wanted to do differently. But I didn't want to do differently.
Your logic will have to lead to defining free will as "free from one's own preferences." In which case I don't want to have that type of free will. In fact, it's logically impossible for someone to prefer to do things that go against their preferences.
As IceCreamMan noted, "Necessary" doesn't mean quite that.
It's essentially 'Can I imagine an alternate universe where you chose to have chocolate icecream and is that alternate universe broadly consistent with the fundamenatal reality of our universe?"
Yes, but only because your knowledge of the universe is limited. If you knew everything about the universe, you would know what (of my memories, genetics, &c.) was causing me to want to not pick chocolate ice cream. You would then have to imagine something randomly (against the laws of our universe) changing my preference.
For you to have free will, it must be possible - however unlikely - for you to have made a different choice.
Free from what?
An example of something that you necessarily couldn't have chosen: You couldn't have chosen to purchase shards-of-glass icecream. We can imagine it, but it's totally inconsistent with our reality. You couldn't have chosen to disassociate into seperate atoms, as that isn't how physics works.
You could have chosen chocolate. It may be implausible, but it is not utterly so.
Someone who knew me a little bit, like just met me, would know I wouldn't get glass ice cream. Someone who knew me very well would know I'd get strawberry. Someone who knew me perfectly would know that I'd get strawberry, I'd take 4.67813 seconds to place my order, and I'd pay with cash by taking it out of my wallet front to back. If that means I don't have free will, then I don't care (no one should), since that would have to mean free will means "free to do things that you don't want to do."
However, if we have the ability to have perfect foreknowledge, it suddenly *is* utterly inconsistent with the facts of our universe, because the facts of our universe now include all your future actions.
Future actions that I'm choosing to do.
edit: it's important to note I'm not saying it is possible for A1 to be true. But if A1 is true, you cannot have free will.
Free from what?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Do coerced confessions impine upon a philosophical view of free will? The law doesn't seek to answer that question. But from a practical view of free will, I'd say it does. It recognizes influence to that will.
Yeah, but everything influences that will.
Take a walk down the cereal aisle of a supermarket and you will see tons of influences on your will. Notice how all of the sugar cereals are at an easily accessible height and have large, brightly-colored boxes.
Influencing free will does not mean removing free will.
I do not get the philosophical circle-jerk about this issue.
Future actions that I'm choosing to do.
So you are of the view that, despite your actions being 100% determined by your past - and entirely an open book (as it were) to someone with sufficient knowledge, you have free will.
In what way "free"? Hell, in what way "will"?
A choice is not a choice unless their is a possibility, however remote, you could have made a different choice. If you are entirely a prisoner of your history, then in all likelihood you have *never* made a choice.
(your view of the universe requires humans to be somehow specially exempt from the 'many worlds' explaination of quantam theory. I'd explain in more detail, but it makes Highroller go into a hulk-like rage )
So you are of the view that, despite your actions being 100% determined by your past
Actually, he seems to be saying that his actions are dependent upon his will and the current situation. Granted, both the current situation and who he is were shaped by the past, but that's part-and-parcel with causality.
A choice is not a choice unless their is a possibility, however remote, you could have made a different choice.
There IS a possibility he could have made a different choice.
Your argument seems to be that the fact that he made the choice he did means that was the only possible choice he could have made. Which does not follow. That he made a choice does not mean he could not have made a different one. As The_AC said, saying "he could have done differently" and saying "he could have done differently if he wanted to" is the exact same thing.
(your view of the universe requires humans to be somehow specially exempt from the 'many worlds' explaination of quantam theory. I'd explain in more detail, but it makes Highroller go into a hulk-like rage )
No, the problem was the argument that Many Worlds is compatible with free will. It isn't.
So you are of the view that, despite your actions being 100% determined by your past
Actually, he seems to be saying that his actions are dependent upon his will and the current situation. Granted, both the current situation and who he is were shaped by the past, but that's part-and-parcel with causality.
Sure, but if your will is utterly shaped by the past it's not like any choice is being made, is it?
A choice is not a choice unless their is a possibility, however remote, you could have made a different choice.
There IS a possibility he could have made a different choice.
Your argument seems to be that the fact that he made the choice he did means that was the only possible choice he could have made. Which does not follow. That he made a choice does not mean he could not have made a different one. As The_AC said, saying "he could have done differently" and saying "he could have done differently if he wanted to" is the exact same thing.
No, that isn't my argument at all.
My argument is that IFF* the action** he took was the only possible action he could have taken, then he does not have free will***
AND
If it is possible to inerrantly**** know what action was going to be taken, then the action he took was the only possible action he could take.
That is, an action is an exercise of free will if the action could have been not taken and an alternate action (or inaction) taken in its place.
Is that a clearer position?
(your view of the universe requires humans to be somehow specially exempt from the 'many worlds' explaination of quantam theory. I'd explain in more detail, but it makes Highroller go into a hulk-like rage )
No, the problem was the argument that Many Worlds is compatible with free will. It isn't.[/QUOTE]
Oh good we're on the same side of that argument then. (Well, mostly - I guess you can theoretically have free will in MW as long as not all actions are taken everywhere; you can have infinite different actions without it being all of them in the same way as you can have infinite fruit and no oranges)
* If and only if
** 'action' seems a less loaded word than 'choice' in this discussion.
*** Even if there is an overwhelming likelihood that he will take a particular action based on history etc - it does not make it the only possible action.
**** IE any argument of the kind "but he could have done something else" is begging the question. If the "big book of the future" or whatever can be incorrect it isn't a book of the future any more than nostradamus*****, the psychic chat line, revalations or any other supposed future predicting text that exists in reality.
***** Also, anyone who believes in anything like a psychic and also free will needs to get their head checked. The two are not compatable.
"I could have done differently" and "I could have done differently if I wanted to" mean the same thing.
Not philosophically they don't.
Reading is tech, I suggest you do some more, I provided the links.
If for some reason you could not have done differently, no matter what or how badly you wanted - wouldn't you agree you weren't free?
For instance - you can't walk on the sun, (a strong "can not") so it would be said that you are not free to walk on the sun, whether you wanted to or not.
Now, does this particular lack of freedom invalidate Free Will?
No. Because there are a million and a half things you can do, and can do otherwise (unless you can't).
A choice between 4 options is less free than a choice between 35 options. Both are much less free than a choice between infinite options.
Few argue for that strict definition of infinite.
Sure, but if your will is utterly shaped by the past it's not like any choice is being made, is it?
Yes, it is.
The fact that how you choose is dependent on who you are, and who you are is shaped by your past, does not mean that there are no choices.
No, that isn't my argument at all.
My argument is that IFF* the action** he took was the only possible action he could have taken, then he does not have free will***
Except it's physically possible for him to choose any other ice cream flavor.
It's not like spontaneously sprouting wings. That is something no human being can do. But ordering strawberry ice cream over chocolate, or chocolate over strawberry is something well within The_AC's capacity.
So no, it's not the only option he could have taken. He could have just ordered another ice cream flavor.
The fact that he didn't order another ice cream flavor =/= he couldn't. You must demonstrate he could not.
If it is possible to inerrantly**** know what action was going to be taken, then the action he took was the only possible action he could take.
This does not follow.
Again, it seems to be that you want to argue that because he chose that way, he could not have chosen otherwise. But he could have chosen otherwise. Nothing physically prevented him from selecting any other ice cream flavor. He just chose the way he did.
That is, an action is an exercise of free will if the action could have been not taken and an alternate action (or inaction) taken in its place.
Which could have happened. He could have ordered anything else, not ordered anything and stared blankly, ordered something that was not ice cream at all, left the store mid-sentence, or done any of a number of other actions.
Again, your argument seems to be because he chose not to do so, it was impossible for him not to do so. That doesn't make sense. You went from A to C without including B.
Is that a clearer position?
Unfortunately, no.
Oh good we're on the same side of that argument then. (Well, mostly - I guess you can theoretically have free will in MW as long as not all actions are taken everywhere; you can have infinite different actions without it being all of them in the same way as you can have infinite fruit and no oranges)
No, you can't have free will in MW. The whole point of Many Worlds is that ALL possible outcomes that could have emerged from a scenario emerge from a scenario. This is not choice. You have no control in a free will universe.
***** Also, anyone who believes in anything like a psychic and also free will needs to get their head checked. The two are not compatable.
Sure they are. It just depends on how the whole prophecy thing works. Does the person know X is going to do Y because X chooses to do Y, or is it because something external is making X do Y?
Except it's physically possible for him to choose any other ice cream flavor.
It's not like spontaneously sprouting wings. That is something no human being can do.
But you're not talking about something a human being could do, you're talking about what this particular person can do. He is no more able to pick a different flavor than sprout wings.
"I could have done differently" and "I could have done differently if I wanted to" mean the same thing.
Not philosophically they don't.
Reading is tech, I suggest you do some more, I provided the links.
If for some reason you could not have done differently, no matter what or how badly you wanted - wouldn't you agree you weren't free?
For instance - you can't walk on the sun, (a strong "can not") so it would be said that you are not free to walk on the sun, whether you wanted to or not.
Now, does this particular lack of freedom invalidate Free Will?
No. Because there are a million and a half things you can do, and can do otherwise (unless you can't).
A choice between 4 options is less free than a choice between 35 options. Both are much less free than a choice between infinite options.
Few argue for that strict definition of infinite.
So, my will isn't free, because my brain forces me to make choices that I like?
Seriously, that position sucks, you should abandon it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
"I could have done differently" and "I could have done differently if I wanted to" mean the same thing.
Not philosophically they don't.
Reading is tech, I suggest you do some more, I provided the links.
If for some reason you could not have done differently, no matter what or how badly you wanted - wouldn't you agree you weren't free?
For instance - you can't walk on the sun, (a strong "can not") so it would be said that you are not free to walk on the sun, whether you wanted to or not.
Now, does this particular lack of freedom invalidate Free Will?
No. Because there are a million and a half things you can do, and can do otherwise (unless you can't).
A choice between 4 options is less free than a choice between 35 options. Both are much less free than a choice between infinite options.
Few argue for that strict definition of infinite.
So, my will isn't free, because my brain forces me to make choices that I like?
Seriously, that position sucks, you should abandon it.
What are you talking about, and how did what I said spawn such a notion?
But you're not talking about something a human being could do, you're talking about what this particular person can do.
... Unless you're arguing that The_AC can sprout wings, or that he's not a human being, what was the sense in posting this?
In a deterministic universe a coin that is going to land heads up is exactly as likely to land tails up as it is likely to turn into a dragon. In a deterministic universe a human is a more complex series of events but is bound in the same way. To reach a different output would involve breaking the laws of physics, so he is as likely to pick the other flavor as he is to sprout wings and for the same reason.
But you're not talking about something a human being could do, you're talking about what this particular person can do.
... Unless you're arguing that The_AC can sprout wings, or that he's not a human being, what was the sense in posting this?
In a deterministic universe a coin that is going to land heads up is exactly as likely to land tails up as it is likely to turn into a dragon. In a deterministic universe a human is a more complex series of events but is bound in the same way. To reach a different output would involve breaking the laws of physics, so he is as likely to pick the other flavor as he is to sprout wings and for the same reason.
No, it does not break the laws of physics for him to order a different ice cream flavor. That is entirely within the bounds of physics. Seriously, go to an ice cream shop and try it sometime. You'll be amazed.
He is no more able to pick a different flavor than sprout wings.
Yes, he is.
I disagree. The exact same laws that prevent him from sprouting wings prevent him from making a different choice.
The exact same laws? Really? The exact same ones?
Because he has no biological capability of sprouting wings. He does, however, have the ability to order any given flavor.
Would you like me to prove it?
Hey, The_AC, would you mind doing me a favor? In your next post, would you mind writing the following statements to demonstrate the fact that it is physically possible for you to order ice cream flavors?
I would like to order chocolate.
I would like to order strawberry.
I would like to order vanilla.
Highroller, please explain how both the following statements can be true:
1) I have a book telling me the precise exact inerrant future and it says the next icecream you order will be easter island flavour*
2) When next taking the action of ordering, you could choose not to order that
flavour.
If you could genuinely make that choice, then my book is not the inerrant future. If my book is the inerrant future, your apparent choice was pre-determined - as in, deterministic, as in not freely willed.
I'm not making any statements about reality, I'm making statements about the supposed reality where that book-of-the-future does or could exist.
Highroller, please explain how both the following statements can be true:
1) I have a book telling me the precise exact inerrant future and it says the next icecream you order will be easter island flavour*
2) When next taking the action of ordering, you could choose not to order that
flavour.
First of all, a book containing the inerrant truth of everything would certainly not misspell the word "flavor."
Second, they are not compatible.
If you could genuinely make that choice, then my book is not the inerrant future. If my book is the inerrant future, your apparent choice was pre-determined - as in, deterministic, as in not freely willed.
Not necessarily. The relevant issue is whether I'm doing something because it's written, or if it's written because of my choices. If it's the latter, then choice is maintained.
I'm not making any statements about reality, I'm making statements about the supposed reality where that book-of-the-future does or could exist.
Again, it depends on which logically precedes the other and which logically follows the other.
Is it that it is written in the book, and therefore Highroller does it?
Or is it that Highroller chooses to do it, therefore it is written in the book?
If it's written in the book because Highroller chooses to do it, then there's no problems with the existence of the book being compatible with choice.
If it must be done because it is written in the book, then the book's existence is not compatible with choice.
If you could genuinely make that choice, then my book is not the inerrant future. If my book is the inerrant future, your apparent choice was pre-determined - as in, deterministic, as in not freely willed.
Not necessarily. The relevant issue is whether I'm doing something because it's written, or if it's written because of my choices. If it's the latter, then choice is maintained.
How, exactly?
If the future is determinable - can be determined inerrantly - how can it not be deterministic?
Verbal, please. It is a book without error. Why would it make the same mistakes in spelling as the rest of the world?
Not necessarily. The relevant issue is whether I'm doing something because it's written, or if it's written because of my choices. If it's the latter, then choice is maintained.
How, exactly?
Because the reason it writes what I will end up doing is because I choose to do it.
If the future is determinable - can be determined inerrantly - how can it not be deterministic?
A free will universe is also determinable. The relevant issue is whether a person has input or does not have input. If a person has no control, there is no free will. If he does, then there is.
To figure out if we have free will, you have to go a little deeper and ask "Well what are we actually?" Is there something deeper than our biology that makes "me" a valid term to use? The answer is, if you believe science, no. We have no inner being or soul, as that would be something metaphysical and un-scientific. So if we are nothing but our biology, then our awareness of ourselves, our ability to think and make decisions, is nothing but neurons firing in our brains. And these neurons firing are under no influence from some "other" thing. Our brains make decisions based on outside influence and internal habits/personality traits. (personality traits are nothing more than genes and previous experiences that influence the formation of our nuerons or how our neurons fire) We are really no different than any other natural occurrence; everything that happens was caused by other factors, be it a raging tsunami or a falling leaf or a flying bird. There is no true "chance". Therefore, there is no "me" making any decisions. There is just a brain reacting to it's environment and internal goings-on in whatever ways it "knows" how. We have no "control" over our actions because their is no "we" to have control over them. Not to say we should just let go of the reins and say "I'm done trying", we still have to make decisions, but it ultimately is not up to "us" what decisions we make. Because of this, it would be theoretically possible to "foresee" the future, if you had enough computing power/all-knowing-ness to come to conclusions based on all the evidence in the world. If you are religious and believe that a god is above all this material stuff, then he/she/it would be able to foresee the future and change it at will. But based on science, nothing is "above" matter.
The answer is, if you believe science, no. We have no inner being or soul, as that would be something metaphysical and un-scientific. So if we are nothing but our biology, then our awareness of ourselves, our ability to think and make decisions, is nothing but neurons firing in our brains.
Something I feel the need to bring up about this:
All things are either deterministic or nondeterministic.
If they are deterministic then there is no "free will" in the regard that given the same set of stimuli the same event will occur.
This would also be relevant in the sense of a theoretical "Soul". Even if a "Soul" existed in a different dimension/plane/etc in such a way that it was not bound by our laws of physics, it would still be bound by _some kind_ of laws of physics of _wherever it originated and/or was located_. As such, its result would be calculable by a being with sufficiently intimate knowledge of the workings of the subject, be it a Soul or a Brain.
The only situation in which determinism is not true is nondeterminism. Nondeterminism implies that the result is inherently unknowable because the factor determining the result(the brain or soul in this case) is truly random and as such cannot be predicted as it is not influenced by any outside stimuli.
If this was the case, it would still not be free will, as you would not be deciding what icecream you wanted, because nothing was, yourself included.
Free will, as the concept of an action free of determinism but not truly random, is itself a paradox and impossibility, because something must either be random or not random. If you decided something it is either because of a reason(determinism) or because of no reason(nondeterminism), and as such you had either "no say in the matter" or you had "no say in the matter", because either the world around you decided what you would pick or nothing did, and you are something and therefore not nothing.
I feel the need to address this because a common argument for free will is the idea that nondeterminism(e.g. an external factor not governed by causality, a "Soul"), and I want to point out that is not actually in favor of free will, but equally against the idea.
According to the laws of behaviorism, do we really have free will? According to Democratis (Ancient Greek), all your actions are determined by atoms bouncing together, which you control. However, what controls you? Your actions are based on what you know, and how you individually process them. Therefore, your decisions are not from free will, but decided through your brain's analysis of previous events' compared to the current situation.
Do coerced confessions impine upon a philosophical view of free will? The law doesn't seek to answer that question. But from a practical view of free will, I'd say it does. It recognizes influence to that will.
Yeah, but everything influences that will.
Take a walk down the cereal aisle of a supermarket and you will see tons of influences on your will. Notice how all of the sugar cereals are at an easily accessible height and have large, brightly-colored boxes.
Influencing free will does not mean removing free will.
1 - A0, A4, AX
2 - B1, BX
3 - CX, and I'm having a hard time understanding the question. I thought liberty defined the cultural restriction of free will.... so is the answer wherever Bob is?
Im guessing free will is like a paradox because it exists and does not exist. I do not think we can control our own actions. Our actions are predetermined by biological and psychological patterns we've adopted as habits. And we still have free will in spite of this.
The problem with determining if free will exist is: we desperately want it to be real. Everyone says its real and we have it. Yes, I can control my own actions. I would like to kill it, the same way we killed God. (Yes, God is dead. And we killed him/her/whatever :D)
Still working.. explanations to come
most of your answers are terrible by the way. you're going to let lawyers tell your what your free will is? dude....
I agree with the Squirrel guy. These are a few reasons why.
Here is how I define free will: I have control over ALL my own actions
If you believe this definition of free will exists then you have to ask yourself:
Do you believe drug addicts can choose to stop being addicted?
Would you be the same person you are now if your parents were Bill Gates?
Most of use have jobs we hate. Why do we still go to work?
The answer (for me) to all these questions is NO, NO, and because we have to. So, if "free" will does not exist, and if we do not have control over our own actions: what controls our actions? Does anything control our actions? What do we have control over and what we can do wtih it?
The answer to all the above is: social contracts. I say social contracts control our actions. Social contracts are laws, polite manners, stuff like that.. all of these are predetermined by where you are currently living, and what communities/tribes/forums/orgies you are a part of. You could of course choose to leave the island and trying to survive on your own like Robinson Crusoe, but you will die. I will not debate that. You will die hard.
If all your actions are tied by strings like the hands of a puppet, then what is left for/of man? What do we have control over? I say nothing, and nothing ever was. We are monkeys.
To summarize everything into a fancy little quote for all you plebs:
Man is not an island. Whom you are is determined by your community. These communities are not by choice.
p.s. Please prove me wrong, I dare you to try and save your Gods from me! I'm violating the remains of your free will! muahahahaha
"I could have done differently" and "I could have done differently if I wanted to" mean the same thing.
Yes, but only because your knowledge of the universe is limited. If you knew everything about the universe, you would know what (of my memories, genetics, &c.) was causing me to want to not pick chocolate ice cream. You would then have to imagine something randomly (against the laws of our universe) changing my preference.
Free from what?
Someone who knew me a little bit, like just met me, would know I wouldn't get glass ice cream. Someone who knew me very well would know I'd get strawberry. Someone who knew me perfectly would know that I'd get strawberry, I'd take 4.67813 seconds to place my order, and I'd pay with cash by taking it out of my wallet front to back. If that means I don't have free will, then I don't care (no one should), since that would have to mean free will means "free to do things that you don't want to do."
Future actions that I'm choosing to do.
Free from what?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Yeah, but everything influences that will.
Take a walk down the cereal aisle of a supermarket and you will see tons of influences on your will. Notice how all of the sugar cereals are at an easily accessible height and have large, brightly-colored boxes.
Influencing free will does not mean removing free will.
I'm glad you're here.
So you are of the view that, despite your actions being 100% determined by your past - and entirely an open book (as it were) to someone with sufficient knowledge, you have free will.
In what way "free"? Hell, in what way "will"?
A choice is not a choice unless their is a possibility, however remote, you could have made a different choice. If you are entirely a prisoner of your history, then in all likelihood you have *never* made a choice.
(your view of the universe requires humans to be somehow specially exempt from the 'many worlds' explaination of quantam theory. I'd explain in more detail, but it makes Highroller go into a hulk-like rage )
Actually, he seems to be saying that his actions are dependent upon his will and the current situation. Granted, both the current situation and who he is were shaped by the past, but that's part-and-parcel with causality.
There IS a possibility he could have made a different choice.
Your argument seems to be that the fact that he made the choice he did means that was the only possible choice he could have made. Which does not follow. That he made a choice does not mean he could not have made a different one. As The_AC said, saying "he could have done differently" and saying "he could have done differently if he wanted to" is the exact same thing.
No, the problem was the argument that Many Worlds is compatible with free will. It isn't.
Sure, but if your will is utterly shaped by the past it's not like any choice is being made, is it?
No, that isn't my argument at all.
My argument is that IFF* the action** he took was the only possible action he could have taken, then he does not have free will***
AND
If it is possible to inerrantly**** know what action was going to be taken, then the action he took was the only possible action he could take.
That is, an action is an exercise of free will if the action could have been not taken and an alternate action (or inaction) taken in its place.
Is that a clearer position?
No, the problem was the argument that Many Worlds is compatible with free will. It isn't.[/QUOTE]
Oh good we're on the same side of that argument then. (Well, mostly - I guess you can theoretically have free will in MW as long as not all actions are taken everywhere; you can have infinite different actions without it being all of them in the same way as you can have infinite fruit and no oranges)
* If and only if
** 'action' seems a less loaded word than 'choice' in this discussion.
*** Even if there is an overwhelming likelihood that he will take a particular action based on history etc - it does not make it the only possible action.
**** IE any argument of the kind "but he could have done something else" is begging the question. If the "big book of the future" or whatever can be incorrect it isn't a book of the future any more than nostradamus*****, the psychic chat line, revalations or any other supposed future predicting text that exists in reality.
***** Also, anyone who believes in anything like a psychic and also free will needs to get their head checked. The two are not compatable.
Not philosophically they don't.
Reading is tech, I suggest you do some more, I provided the links.
If for some reason you could not have done differently, no matter what or how badly you wanted - wouldn't you agree you weren't free?
For instance - you can't walk on the sun, (a strong "can not") so it would be said that you are not free to walk on the sun, whether you wanted to or not.
Now, does this particular lack of freedom invalidate Free Will?
No. Because there are a million and a half things you can do, and can do otherwise (unless you can't).
A choice between 4 options is less free than a choice between 35 options. Both are much less free than a choice between infinite options.
Few argue for that strict definition of infinite.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Yes, it is.
The fact that how you choose is dependent on who you are, and who you are is shaped by your past, does not mean that there are no choices.
Except it's physically possible for him to choose any other ice cream flavor.
It's not like spontaneously sprouting wings. That is something no human being can do. But ordering strawberry ice cream over chocolate, or chocolate over strawberry is something well within The_AC's capacity.
So no, it's not the only option he could have taken. He could have just ordered another ice cream flavor.
The fact that he didn't order another ice cream flavor =/= he couldn't. You must demonstrate he could not.
This does not follow.
Again, it seems to be that you want to argue that because he chose that way, he could not have chosen otherwise. But he could have chosen otherwise. Nothing physically prevented him from selecting any other ice cream flavor. He just chose the way he did.
Which could have happened. He could have ordered anything else, not ordered anything and stared blankly, ordered something that was not ice cream at all, left the store mid-sentence, or done any of a number of other actions.
Again, your argument seems to be because he chose not to do so, it was impossible for him not to do so. That doesn't make sense. You went from A to C without including B.
Unfortunately, no.
No, you can't have free will in MW. The whole point of Many Worlds is that ALL possible outcomes that could have emerged from a scenario emerge from a scenario. This is not choice. You have no control in a free will universe.
Sure they are. It just depends on how the whole prophecy thing works. Does the person know X is going to do Y because X chooses to do Y, or is it because something external is making X do Y?
But you're not talking about something a human being could do, you're talking about what this particular person can do. He is no more able to pick a different flavor than sprout wings.
... Unless you're arguing that The_AC can sprout wings, or that he's not a human being, what was the sense in posting this?
Yes, he is.
So, my will isn't free, because my brain forces me to make choices that I like?
Seriously, that position sucks, you should abandon it.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
What are you talking about, and how did what I said spawn such a notion?
Are you referring to this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf9eGUWGtyo
http://aphilosopherstake.com/2012/08/10/neuroscience-and-free-will-new-study-debunks-libets-interpretation/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will
If so, then I don't see the point. After all, my subconscious is still MINE.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
In a deterministic universe a coin that is going to land heads up is exactly as likely to land tails up as it is likely to turn into a dragon. In a deterministic universe a human is a more complex series of events but is bound in the same way. To reach a different output would involve breaking the laws of physics, so he is as likely to pick the other flavor as he is to sprout wings and for the same reason.
I disagree. The exact same laws that prevent him from sprouting wings prevent him from making a different choice.
No, it does not break the laws of physics for him to order a different ice cream flavor. That is entirely within the bounds of physics. Seriously, go to an ice cream shop and try it sometime. You'll be amazed.
The exact same laws? Really? The exact same ones?
Because he has no biological capability of sprouting wings. He does, however, have the ability to order any given flavor.
Would you like me to prove it?
Hey, The_AC, would you mind doing me a favor? In your next post, would you mind writing the following statements to demonstrate the fact that it is physically possible for you to order ice cream flavors?
I would like to order chocolate.
I would like to order strawberry.
I would like to order vanilla.
Thanks!
1) I have a book telling me the precise exact inerrant future and it says the next icecream you order will be easter island flavour*
2) When next taking the action of ordering, you could choose not to order that
flavour.
If you could genuinely make that choice, then my book is not the inerrant future. If my book is the inerrant future, your apparent choice was pre-determined - as in, deterministic, as in not freely willed.
I'm not making any statements about reality, I'm making statements about the supposed reality where that book-of-the-future does or could exist.
First of all, a book containing the inerrant truth of everything would certainly not misspell the word "flavor."
Second, they are not compatible.
Not necessarily. The relevant issue is whether I'm doing something because it's written, or if it's written because of my choices. If it's the latter, then choice is maintained.
Again, it depends on which logically precedes the other and which logically follows the other.
Is it that it is written in the book, and therefore Highroller does it?
Or is it that Highroller chooses to do it, therefore it is written in the book?
If it's written in the book because Highroller chooses to do it, then there's no problems with the existence of the book being compatible with choice.
If it must be done because it is written in the book, then the book's existence is not compatible with choice.
Although it might spell it the way everyone in the world who isn't from the US spells it, I guess.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/flavor-flavour/
How, exactly?
If the future is determinable - can be determined inerrantly - how can it not be deterministic?
Verbal, please. It is a book without error. Why would it make the same mistakes in spelling as the rest of the world?
Because the reason it writes what I will end up doing is because I choose to do it.
A free will universe is also determinable. The relevant issue is whether a person has input or does not have input. If a person has no control, there is no free will. If he does, then there is.
Something I feel the need to bring up about this:
All things are either deterministic or nondeterministic.
If they are deterministic then there is no "free will" in the regard that given the same set of stimuli the same event will occur.
This would also be relevant in the sense of a theoretical "Soul". Even if a "Soul" existed in a different dimension/plane/etc in such a way that it was not bound by our laws of physics, it would still be bound by _some kind_ of laws of physics of _wherever it originated and/or was located_. As such, its result would be calculable by a being with sufficiently intimate knowledge of the workings of the subject, be it a Soul or a Brain.
The only situation in which determinism is not true is nondeterminism. Nondeterminism implies that the result is inherently unknowable because the factor determining the result(the brain or soul in this case) is truly random and as such cannot be predicted as it is not influenced by any outside stimuli.
If this was the case, it would still not be free will, as you would not be deciding what icecream you wanted, because nothing was, yourself included.
Free will, as the concept of an action free of determinism but not truly random, is itself a paradox and impossibility, because something must either be random or not random. If you decided something it is either because of a reason(determinism) or because of no reason(nondeterminism), and as such you had either "no say in the matter" or you had "no say in the matter", because either the world around you decided what you would pick or nothing did, and you are something and therefore not nothing.
I feel the need to address this because a common argument for free will is the idea that nondeterminism(e.g. an external factor not governed by causality, a "Soul"), and I want to point out that is not actually in favor of free will, but equally against the idea.
Free will is just a simplification that people use because influences on your will are too numerous and complicated for them to compute.
2 - B1, BX
3 - CX, and I'm having a hard time understanding the question. I thought liberty defined the cultural restriction of free will.... so is the answer wherever Bob is?
Im guessing free will is like a paradox because it exists and does not exist. I do not think we can control our own actions. Our actions are predetermined by biological and psychological patterns we've adopted as habits. And we still have free will in spite of this.
The problem with determining if free will exist is: we desperately want it to be real. Everyone says its real and we have it. Yes, I can control my own actions. I would like to kill it, the same way we killed God. (Yes, God is dead. And we killed him/her/whatever :D)
Still working.. explanations to come
most of your answers are terrible by the way. you're going to let lawyers tell your what your free will is? dude....
Here is how I define free will: I have control over ALL my own actions
If you believe this definition of free will exists then you have to ask yourself:
Do you believe drug addicts can choose to stop being addicted?
Would you be the same person you are now if your parents were Bill Gates?
Most of use have jobs we hate. Why do we still go to work?
The answer (for me) to all these questions is NO, NO, and because we have to. So, if "free" will does not exist, and if we do not have control over our own actions: what controls our actions? Does anything control our actions? What do we have control over and what we can do wtih it?
The answer to all the above is: social contracts. I say social contracts control our actions. Social contracts are laws, polite manners, stuff like that.. all of these are predetermined by where you are currently living, and what communities/tribes/forums/orgies you are a part of. You could of course choose to leave the island and trying to survive on your own like Robinson Crusoe, but you will die. I will not debate that. You will die hard.
If all your actions are tied by strings like the hands of a puppet, then what is left for/of man? What do we have control over? I say nothing, and nothing ever was. We are monkeys.
To summarize everything into a fancy little quote for all you plebs:
Man is not an island. Whom you are is determined by your community. These communities are not by choice.
p.s. Please prove me wrong, I dare you to try and save your Gods from me! I'm violating the remains of your free will! muahahahaha