Does free will exist?

[Devil's Advocate]

Where there is a sub-conscious decision, there is a way...

 

[Ursa major]

Ursa, I see the point you're making (I hope) but I don't think subconscous decision-making can be classed as an exercise in free will, because there is no "will", in the sense of "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action". But I appreciate there are other, less strict definitions of "will".

The exercise of will (whether truly free or only apparently free) would not be in the generation of the puns but the decision what to do with them.

I can see what you mean, but I would argue that "will" - or the ability to determine and express it - is another of those functions and processes which cannot be pinned down as being on one side or another of a mental border.

Think of a committee. For some reason or other - lack of expertise, or the desire to avoid getting bogged down in detail or (worse) heated arguments, or worry that proper consideration would likely eat into time better spent on the golf course or in a bar - sets up a sub-committee to come up with a proposal or do some fact-finding. The sub-committee comes up with a report and the committee takes some or other decision based on this. It may be (all other things being equal) that all the committee does is rubber-stamp whatever the sub-committee has done. (It may even have dlegated responsibility for the decision when it set up the sub-committee). The mani committee then publishes the decision, not bothering to mention the sub-committee's deliberations.

I get the impression that this is (at least sometimes) what our conscious mind does.

It also seems to me that the conscious mind is a bit like the Board of a large company; its members tell us (and act as if they believe it) that they are the source of all the wealth created by the company. They are deceiving us (and, maybe, themselves).

 

[Chinook]

The fact that legal systems hold others morally accountable for their actions doesn't necessarily imply the existence of free will, only (as you pretty much say yourself) a belief in it.

You're leaving out everything else I said. What I am using is "agreement reality" logic, where, if a sufficiently large proportion of the population believes that some concept (like free will) is defined by certain parameters, that makes it more or less true for that population. It is an agreed upon reality. It is also "shored up" in the fact that it is so widely accepted, that it is incorporated within our legal systems. I believe that is a pretty strong argument, but then like Paul Simon said, "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." (which is another side effect of free will.)

 

[Interference]

Leave i', Chin, 'e's no' worff i'.

 

[The Ace]

Dunno, I'll have to ask Mum.

 

[Interference]

LOL


Ok, to make up the seven characters, I'll just say this one more time and then leave, much to the relief of everyone here:

Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable.

There. A little over seven characters do you? (I used to sell cheese)

(pigeons ... meet the cat)

 

[dustinzgirl]

They don't do those in the 440 range, what else can we tempt you with?

Well hubby wants the engine to put into the plymouth.

I want an RV to chill in for the summer.

But I don't want to spend money on it.

So.............give me both!

But if fate determines our actions and reactions and the larger world around us, then why do we have the ability to think and make decisions? Perhaps fate is only involved with the major things, the epic determinants of the whole planet, like the invention of fire and nuclear war.

 

[Interference]

Yep, I made that point too. What we do on this mudball doesn't matter a damn to the Universe.

*not smug, just annoying *

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable.

I concur, and would also add 'never-ending'.

leave, much to the relief of everyone here:

Ditto.

Peace.

 

[HareBrain]

Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable.

Inter, you've just argued against an earlier post where you reacted positively to the idea that free will might evolve as a means of creativity. How do you think free will is going to evolve, by itself? While we just sit around waiting for it to happen? OK, I'm going to risk going all whacko here, but since this thread has run its course I'll take that risk -- evolution in consciousness can only occur if we incorporate within the more recent layers all the earlier layers, and that includes understanding the extent to which our subconscious affects our ego -- and that's why thinking about the concept of free will, and asking ourselves whether we possess it, and when or if we use it, is useful. I contend.

 

[Interference]

I do, as I said in the post you aren't quoting, find the concept appealing, that consciousness evolves and that free will might be the outcome. I'm not yet so full of myself that I can't see an elegance in someone else's proposition, however divergent it may seem from my own. I am, after all, first and foremost a fiction writer, not a philosopher.

My current state of philosophical thinking presumes the Universe to be a creative force and that we reflect that creativity in our own lives. Ken Dodd once said that he felt the Meaning Of Life is to be creative, and I completely (at the time of writing) concur with that proposition.

Someone else was talking about absolutes before - probably not here - saying that the true test of an absolute condition is what would happen if you removed it? Very often, nothing very different. Thus the "absolute" becomes obsolete.

"evolution in consciousness can only occur if we incorporate within the more recent layers all the earlier layers" is as likely to be true as untrue, all we know is that evolution will occur. How it occurs is for debate among those who have evolved. (Perhaps this is that very debate.) Our ape ancestors can hardly be expected to have wondered what lay ahead for its species.

Free Will, like the power of flight or walking upright, will or won't evolve with or without your help or mine. Perhaps it already has, or perhaps the fact that we contemplate it means it is still just an aspiration. The need to walk on two legs began, after all, as an aspiration, and only through natural selection became the norm.

But it was a survivalist imperative. Can the same be said for Free Will? Are we, as a species, dependent on Free Will for our survival? No: Whatever guides us, affects us or informs us is a natural process. or Yes: We are well capable of making appropriate choices to advance our lives and our species.

Each of these arguments, it appears to me, is strong.

Can this be used to discover whether or not Free Will exists? Probably not to any degree of conclusiveness. A volcano has no choice over whether or not it erupts and the result, on the one hand, is Pompeii, while on the other it's Hawaii. From this, it's pretty clear the volcano has no need of free will. How different are we from a volcano, then, as we are each as capable, in equal measure, of devastation or beauty as the other? If we have Free Will, how do we choose to exercise it? We choose to turn left or right, we marshal our financial resources, we argue our points with one another, all of which are cosmically, I suggest, rather pointless expressions of something that so many people consider so fundamentally essential. Individual free will (allowing that it exists) plays a very small role in, for example, global politics.

And it is for reasons such as these that I concluded before with: "Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable."

In another medium, I might be tempted to write and re-write that paragraph for clarity and precision, but for now I suspect it holds up well enough with perhaps just this small addition: As thinking people, you and I can both reason each side of the argument to a satisfactory conclusion. This supports, I believe, my contention that debate is unprofitable as it shows how irrelevant any question is that results in the answer "Yes if this and yes if that."

In the end, having found an answer we can completely and utterly resonate with, will we act any differently?

 

[Chinook]

Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?

Just kidding.

 

[Interference]

Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?

Somebody please merge this thread

 

[Moonbat]

"Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable."

It's a strange assumption that without free will we wouldn't behave any differently. Free will is such an intangable concept that it cannot be proven one way or the other, but to conclude that life would be the same if it does exist or doesn't is unsubstantiatied. Like saying life would be no different if God exists or if He doesn't.
I can see that life in the here and now might not change one iota if God truly doesn't exist, but the past, and particularly the beginning would change, would it not?

If there isn't free will, and I don't subscribe to free will being something that comes with consciousness of the descision or sentience, then even the primordial gloop that had a choice (although driven by instinct) between bright sunlight and damp shade was following a predetermined path, (I'm somehow assuming the gloop could move) I have made many decisions in my life, not least the choice between turning left or right when I wasn't sure of the direction. Had I turned right things would/could have been very different.

To say we are here because we are here is akin to saying nothing at all, and lord knows we are certainly saying something.

A Volcano doesn't have free will, but it doesn't have a descision making process, we do. We can decide if we turn right or left.

Individual free will (allowing that it exists) plays a very small role in, for example, global politics.

Again how can you be sure, Hitler made a descision to give up painting and run for office, did that descision not play a major role in global politics? What about Barrack Obama, he must have decided at some point not to become a rapper (joke) and run for Office, his subsequent election to the office of president has definitely had an effect on global politics, if only to rob someone worthy of the nobel peace prize and give Kenyans a new national holiday, still it is an effect.

Talking in terms of the universe, nothing really matters what we do, unless we are unique in terms of our evolution towards sentience and philosophy, if sentience is a common result across the universe then not much we do matters in cosmic terms.

 

[Ursa major]

Are there things that people do that cannot be explained other than by the existence of free will? (And I'm suggesting that we exclude the "an angel told him or her to do it" argument.)

 

[Interference]

Talking in terms of the universe, nothing really matters what we do, unless we are unique in terms of our evolution towards sentience and philosophy, if sentience is a common result across the universe then not much we do matters in cosmic terms.

My view, too.

 

[Ursa major]

On the other hand, if we scour the universe for nascent intelligence and remove the possibility that it will develop further, then we would matter in cosmic terms.








Or would we?

 

[Interference]

How long is any civilisation reasonably expected to survive?

Now, how long is eternity?

Does anything matter in cosmic terms?

Let's just live our lives and try not to hurt anybody. Not for the cosmos, but for ourselves.

 

[Ursa major]

Let's just live our lives and try not to hurt anybody. Not for the cosmos, but for ourselves.

But we're humans....

 

[Moonbat]

Are there things that people do that cannot be explained other than by the existence of free will? (And I'm suggesting that we exclude the "an angel told him or her to do it" argument.)

I'm not sure. Can you explain my choice to wear a blue t-shirt today as anything other than free will, I have penty of other t-shirts that I could have chosen to wear.

Its going to come down to a definition of free will, Interference would suggest that all of my past experiences (included owning a blue t-shirt) has lead me to choose the blue t-shirt today and not the others.

Other examples would be

Suicide
Supporting a loosing team
choosing not to wear a condom
having that extra biscuit when you know you shouldn't
Watching Eastenders