Does the idea of Free Will appeal to you??

[Rores28]

'What is it that you read my lord? Words,words,words.'
Come on,free-will is like Porn,you know what it is,its blatantly obvious,and you cant rationalize it away. (unless you use your free-will to deny your fre-will!!) Determinism in philosophy or science just shows the limits of these two 'sciences'.

No. I would like to believe in free will, but it does not make any sense. I've been open to plenty of counter arguments to convince me but they just haven't.

Free will exists in the same way that the color red exists. But that is the most that can be said of it.

If you have a book or article with a convincing counter argument that explores a universe that is neither causal, random, or a combination of the two, I would be interested in taking a look.

But if the main thrust of the argument runs something like this.... "If in the future scientists figured out they could predict exactly what someone would do and they asked you to kill your wife, would you?" then don't bother.

[Theunderground]

Well William james in his piece 'The will to believe' presents some good arguments. But i myself will state (without trying to belittle you.) that the possible cause of you denying free-will is listening to and digesting too many 'science theories',or being physcially and mentally tired. You cannot totally compare the material workings of the universe with a human. Even Newtonian physics breaks down at certain levels. Quantum physics shows some form of 'randomness or free-will' as a fundamental property of energy/matter.
But in the final analysis,its like trying to prove love by intellectual or scientific means. You have to feel it or come to it naturally. Free-will is an emotional reality,not an intellectual riddle.

[PoeticPassions]

Wow, reading through this thread was like reading through some bizarre short story by Dostoevsky...


Here is an opinion piece on science and Free Will that I enjoyed reading from the New York Times
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...%20will&st=cse

And another great one from the NY TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/sc...%20will&st=cse

excerpt from the above:
''In one experiment, some people read a passage from Francis Crick, the molecular biologist, asserting that free will is a quaint old notion no longer taken seriously by intellectuals, especially not psychologists and neuroscientists. Afterward, when compared with a control group that read a different passage from Crick (who died in 2004) these people expressed more skepticism about free will — and promptly cut themselves some moral slack while taking a math test.

Asked to solve a series of arithmetic problems in a computerized quiz, they cheated by getting the answers through a glitch in the computer that they’d been asked not to exploit. The supposed glitch, of course, had been put there as a temptation by the researchers, Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In a follow-up experiment, the psychologists gave another test in which people were promised $1 for every correct answer — and got to compile their own scores. Just as Dr. Vohs and Dr. Schooler feared, people were more likely to cheat after being exposed beforehand to arguments against free will. These people went home with more unearned cash than did the other people.....'

....'Free will guides people’s choices toward being more moral and better performers,” Dr. Vohs said. 'It’s adaptive for societies and individuals to hold a belief in free will, as it helps people adhere to cultural codes of conduct that portend healthy, wealthy and happy life outcomes.'”

So I guess, in this sense the idea has appeal...

[Rores28]

Well William james in his piece 'The will to believe' presents some good arguments. But i myself will state (without trying to belittle you.) that the possible cause of you denying free-will is listening to and digesting too many 'science theories',or being physcially and mentally tired. You cannot totally compare the material workings of the universe with a human. Even Newtonian physics breaks down at certain levels. Quantum physics shows some form of 'randomness or free-will' as a fundamental property of energy/matter.
But in the final analysis,its like trying to prove love by intellectual or scientific means. You have to feel it or come to it naturally. Free-will is an emotional reality,not an intellectual riddle.

I came to the conclusion that free will cannot exist on my accord (as much as anyone can come to any conclusion on their own). I did not convince myself through "digesting too many science theories" nor through being tired. In fact when I first came to this realization I was quite active and energetic.

Also randomness does not equate to free will (if this is what you were implying). If your behaviors were completely random this would not indicate what most people consider to be free will. The same goes for a completely causal universe. And the same goes for one that was a mix of randomness and causality.

I don't completely agree with your final analogy. Its as I said with the color red. Few would deny that the wavelength that causes a particular person to see red light is itself red. And few would also deny that that person sees red when stimulated by that wavelength. In fact free will is an emotional reality and an "intellectual riddle."

Lemme be clear here. I feel like I have free will just as much as I see the color red, so in this sense free will, "exists." I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is whether or not that is simply a "trick" or contingency of our nervous system / body.

Absent anything in the universe that operates in a manner other than causal or random means, the simplest explanation seems to be that free will (as is conceived of by most people) does not exist.

Also I'm not saying I don't think that there could exist some other "connective mechansim" (besides causality and randomness) in the universe that would indeed mean we have free will, but being that we can't find anything in the universe as such, I have to think free will is merely a contingency of our nervous system, much in the way that red, or cold, or love are.

[Rores28]

Wow, reading through this thread was like reading through some bizarre short story by Dostoevsky...


Here is an opinion piece on science and Free Will that I enjoyed reading from the New York Times
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...%20will&st=cse

And another great one from the NY TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/sc...%20will&st=cse

excerpt from the above:
''In one experiment, some people read a passage from Francis Crick, the molecular biologist, asserting that free will is a quaint old notion no longer taken seriously by intellectuals, especially not psychologists and neuroscientists. Afterward, when compared with a control group that read a different passage from Crick (who died in 2004) these people expressed more skepticism about free will — and promptly cut themselves some moral slack while taking a math test.

Asked to solve a series of arithmetic problems in a computerized quiz, they cheated by getting the answers through a glitch in the computer that they’d been asked not to exploit. The supposed glitch, of course, had been put there as a temptation by the researchers, Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In a follow-up experiment, the psychologists gave another test in which people were promised $1 for every correct answer — and got to compile their own scores. Just as Dr. Vohs and Dr. Schooler feared, people were more likely to cheat after being exposed beforehand to arguments against free will. These people went home with more unearned cash than did the other people.....'

....'Free will guides people’s choices toward being more moral and better performers,” Dr. Vohs said. 'It’s adaptive for societies and individuals to hold a belief in free will, as it helps people adhere to cultural codes of conduct that portend healthy, wealthy and happy life outcomes.'”

So I guess, in this sense the idea has appeal...

Thats awesome.

[cafolini]

I came to the conclusion that free will cannot exist on my accord (as much as anyone can come to any conclusion on their own). I did not convince myself through "digesting too many science theories" nor through being tired. In fact when I first came to this realization I was quite active and energetic.

Also randomness does not equate to free will (if this is what you were implying). If your behaviors were completely random this would not indicate what most people consider to be free will. The same goes for a completely causal universe. And the same goes for one that was a mix of randomness and causality.

I don't completely agree with your final analogy. Its as I said with the color red. Few would deny that the wavelength that causes a particular person to see red light is itself red. And few would also deny that that person sees red when stimulated by that wavelength. In fact free will is an emotional reality and an "intellectual riddle."

Lemme be clear here. I feel like I have free will just as much as I see the color red, so in this sense free will, "exists." I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is whether or not that is simply a "trick" or contingency of our nervous system / body.

Absent anything in the universe that operates in a manner other than causal or random means, the simplest explanation seems to be that free will (as is conceived of by most people) does not exist.

Also I'm not saying I don't think that there could exist some other "connective mechansim" (besides causality and randomness) in the universe that would indeed mean we have free will, but being that we can't find anything in the universe as such, I have to think free will is merely a contingency of our nervous system, much in the way that red, or cold, or love are.

Free will at max is freedom of choice among what's given and possible. Free will exists, but it does not occur. It is a religious idea of people trying to cope.
Freedom of choice is greater or smaller depending on information at anyone's disposal.
I agree that the analogies given by the person you are critiquing do not apply.

[Rores28]

"Few would deny that the wavelength that causes a particular person to see red light is itself red."

*Edit* This should read: "Few would contend that the wavelength that causes a particular person to see red light is itself red."

[mazHur]

Free Will is like a law. Take it or leave it and face the consequences.

[Ohmyscience]

To detract a little from the subject, if free will does not exists how can a legal system function? I personally think that free will is most likely a human vanity. If we cannot extend free will to animals how can it be an all encompassing rule.

[mazHur]

To detract a little from the subject, if free will does not exists how can a legal system function? I personally think that free will is most likely a human vanity. If we cannot extend free will to animals how can it be an all encompassing rule.

Free Will does not apply to animals......or does it??? How many asses have been tried in a court of law for back-kicking or biting??

Court of laws are man-made organizations.... and they and their laws and procedures differ from state to state, place to place.

[Theunderground]

Free-will is like porn. You know full well what it is,and its real...

[cacian]

This is how I would interpret it is I saw it out of context.
Free Will

I would read it like this:

''free the will'' in the sense of ''let your will go freely''.
Which means to me to say to let go of others pressures and constraint and go with your feelings/ideas.

If it was in within a context then no I do not think free will is about things having to happen regardless.
I believe in things because of a reasone.
Like there is an action and then a reaction.
Things don't just because things happens because a driven force.

[mazHur]

Free-will is like porn. You know full well what it is,and its real...

That would be an insult to pornographers!

[cafolini]

To detract a little from the subject, if free will does not exists how can a legal system function? I personally think that free will is most likely a human vanity. If we cannot extend free will to animals how can it be an all encompassing rule.

A legal system is not based on free will. That's a dumb contradiction. If there was free will, we would not need laws. A legal system is based on freedom of given choices and well-publish laws. More than a human vanity it is a human, religious lie.

[mazHur]

A legal system is not based on free will. That's a dumb contradiction. If there was free will, we would not need laws. A legal system is based on freedom of given choices and well-publish laws. More than a human vanity it is a human, religious lie.

In fact Laws are man-made administrative rules to keep people in leash.
Free Will is voluntary, divine.