eh?

Well if you believe in the bible the clear and obvious answer would be correct--free will is non-existant. I actually believe in hard determinism myself but for other reasons...

Free will ultimatly comes down to the concept of random numbers.

If in fact, there are TRUELY random numbers in the universe, then in fact, we have free will. If not, then we do not have free will.

This all really breaks down to consciousness - neural networks - weights - random numbers. This would allow for random consciousness and in truth, free will. Consciousness is technically supposed to have a will of its own and the sub-conscious is supposed to be the super computer that obeys every command. If we are talking in strictly Psychological terms, there is a free will known as consciousness. If we are talking in terms of neuroscience - it has yet to be determined.

Flex, if you believe in the bible then you believe in free will. According to the Christians, god gave them free will, every other animal has no free will. This goes back to the adam and eve story where they take the apple against gods will because they have a will of their own and are thus free to make their own decisions.

xxxxxx wrong!!!!

If God is all powerful then I am a slave to his wishes and have no free will. Adam and Eve were in a perfect world according to the bible. They were not allowed to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. When they ate the fruit they got the power of thought and created good and evil. The Bible is retarded. It is saying things will be perfect as long as you don't think for yourself.

No, the Bible is a Translation of several peoples experiences with Christ and his Teachings.
What is interpreted or projected into the Bible from the level of consciousness of its Translators is then reinterpreted by those who are at a lesser state of consciousness than the Christed Teacher who led by example rather than by intellectual reasoning.

The Bible infers that perfection exists regardless of personal interpretations that are not connected to a single stable source.


Adam and Eve were born of a perfect source and were not forbidden to wander into sensory deluded beliefs of imperfection and duality. If it was forbidden and they were not given the choice they would not have strayed from omniscience into ignorance.

You really should study the Bible from a more objective point of view before attempting to make any claims of understanding its content, and what it represents.

And why so Trip? I never expected to see a post from you that just says "wrong"
I thought you were brighter than that.

The only way for our choices and actions to be within our control is for them to be causally determined by those internal mental states which are our reasons for choosing/acting in this way. And we know full well that we do not have any control over those.

To have control over them would require them to be causally determined by other previous states over which we also have control. It would seem that an infinite regress of causally determination is required, but we know that if we go back far enough we will find events over which we have no control at all (such as events before our birth) (Van Inwagen). The only way to break this chain of causal determination is to introduce an element of random indeterminacy, but I certainly don't have any control over the outcome of a randomly indeterminate event!

To the extent that my choices are causally determined by my reasons, they are not free. But to the extent that they are not causally determined by my reasons, they are not mine.

The fact that we have reasons affecting our choices does not by itself require them them to causally determine those choices. They only must causally determine them if those choices are to be free choices exemplifying our free will.

If my reasons (I use "reasons" here in a very broad sense) immediately prior to any choice causally determine the single specific choice that is actually made, then the choice is mine because it follows from my own reasons for that choice. But it is not free because it was the only choice that was causally possible for me in that particular situation, such that I couldn't have chosen otherwise (by causal necessity).

On the other hand, if those reasons do not causally necessitate which specific choice I will actually make (if say there were some intervening random causal indeterminacy between my reasons and choice), then my subsequent choice will indeed be free because there is a very real sense in which more than one choice was a real (causal) possibility. But the resulting choice will not be mine because it is separated from me and my reasons such that I have no influence whatsoever over which of the causally possible choices actually occurs.

If you can see a way out of this problem I'd love to hear it. You'll also be able to make quite a name for yourself in professional philosophy. Most professional philosophers (but certainly not all) agree that the kind of metaphysical free will ruled out by the above problem is not only impossible but is something that we are misguided in even wanting to have. But the only alternative is compatibilist free will, and I think that a "free will" that is consistent with the fact that there is only one causally possible future resulting from any given state of affairs is hardly deserving of the name.

The modern problem of free will is not that of choosing between free will and determinism, but rather that of showing how free will can even serve as a viable coherent option. For further online reading try
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm

Corr ... this religion thing really IS a virus. I had hoped that we might we might have a scientific discussion here, hence posting the issue in the General Consciousness Discussion Board, rather than the Theological ones.

Anyway ... all actions are reflex, eh?

Hey Hey,

Before my previous post I had typed something similar to what you are saying, only not as polite.
I have tired from attempting to move/keep conversations here within the original context that it
was posted in, but still the religious overtures bleed through like stigmata on a leper.

Don't you really mean that Judgment sways ones mind toward what one can't see beyond?

Life is an expression or reflection of the mind.

This thread is a reflection of Thought not bound by any predisposed rule or direction.


Evidently You and Hey Hey don't agree with the freedom of others to express themselves outside of your own personal frame of mind.

Not at all Joesus. However it would be refreshing if people actually did step outside their own personal frame of mind and engage in dialogue. Not just regurgitate information but too *really* think. It is not an attack, but merely a nudge to stay on the topic/question posed.

NO, you are wrong! I do agree with the freedom of others to express, but I DO NOT agree with what you are expressing and more specifically, I DO NOT agree with you expressing it (it being the tangential religious distraction) in this particular board. Get back to the point!

Freedom to regurgitate is the perfect way to stay on topic don't you think?

What is will? Is it not movement of energy that has some measure of intelligence?

Oh and agreement has nothing to do with freedom.

You might want to start another topic on what is agreement Hey Hey and stay with us here on what is being expressed rather than any preconcieved idea about what you think others are free to do according to your beliefs.

Insects and some robots have it then?

If the regurgitated information was actually on topic it would be excusable



What do you think free will is? Do you think we have it?

I will use those religious overtures to defend my belief of hard determinism. Everything can be broken down into causality. Each "choice" a person makes is not so much a choice, but rather like adding vectors. Anytime one talks about free will, religion is bound to arise--it is easy to predict. Some other harder examples may come when someone is in a possition to say steal medication, or die. The individual weighs his/her options:

Steal and live......Don't steal*sociallytaboo+Punishment+Only a temporary fix
-------------->......+.....<-----<----------<-- = <-----

I think there is no such thing as free will, but rather people will do their own cost analysis weighing their options, and ALWAYS pick the option with the greatest benifit. One may have the perception of free will, but when it all comes down to it our decisions are always selfish.

The relative distinctions of "who has it." is that on topic? The Topic heading is a statement, "There is no free will." The topic argument is, anything contrary to the finite statement such as insects and robots have it.

If you can't control something outside of your own direction of thought then is there something that exists free from your own direction and is the direction you choose free from that which you perceive?


You only say that because you yourself can't detach from a particular point of view or thought stream.
You yourself are not free from the reactions that are caused by your own interpretations of reality i.e. the interpretation of the Topic statement "There is no Free Will."
I would make a suggestion that by the example of not meeting your expectations of Topic interpretation I am free from the limits of your attachment to my interpretations and expressions.


It's not whether I believe, but whether you will allow me to believe that will set you and or me free in your own experience.

Will is simply awareness and it is not bound by anything other than perceptions of reality. It can be focused and directed with intent or desire.

Ooh, I just thought of something! What about when control over the body is relinquished through neuroscience and the consciousness becomes under the influence of a third party? Is free will eternal? can it be gained? can it be lost?

If we look to neuroscience, they have created a chip, which allows a person to control the sensory and motor functions of an animal. Which therefore bypasses the conscious will over the body and hands it to the operator (its being used by the US Navy and was featured on the discovery channel). Also, what about cult groups who have a great deal of influence over their members to the point where the leaders decision is always agreed with 100%, even if it conflicts with the morals of the person?

Do we have evidence here of loss or lack of free will, can someone have more or less free will/freedom?

The approach I've seen on this thread thus far seems to be a "category error." Without properly defining a few parameters, the discussion can go on forever...and not solve a thing.

First, offer a definition of free will.

Thus far, I've seen nihilism, hermenuetics and even evolutionary philosophy offered in response to the dictate, "There is no free will."

So... What outside factors are being used to define "Lack of free will"?

Does free will mean individual sovereignty? If you've submitted yourself to an ideology, an agenda, an assumption, a preconception, etc., you most certainly do not have free will. if you've submitted yourself to another person's or group's code of honor and of conduct, your free will is also negatively impacted. The examples can go on almost endlessly. Gluttony, sloth, greed, addictions, blah, blah...also have a negative impact upon our free will.

Personally, I think that there is a form of "predestination" at work in the universe. I define the term under some rather well-known bits of science, however: Electromagnetism, thermodynamics, entropy, "gravity", etc. If you stick yer finger in a light socket, yer gonna get zapped. If you jump off a cliff, you're gonna die. If you live long enough, you're going to become old and decrepit, etc. if you don't play with electricity or jump off cliffs, you will increase your chances of living to become old and decrepit. If you do things without considering the consequences, you die young. The choice is yours. So, the questions is: Where does free will begin and where does it end?

Other factors should also be considered. Brain entrainment begins almost at conception and continues throughout your life. However, the plasticity of your brain is pretty well set by your late teens and early twenties. Early environment is a factor in how you make decisions for the rest of your life. DNA (genes) also makes a difference. Diet also impacts our development and thus our decision making abilities. Education and training also impact our decision making processes. External influences from our society have an impact as well. Do such things fall under lack of free will...or not?

On the other hand hand, I think that we can and do make individual choices that directly affect the world around us.

Predestination, according to both religion and evolutionary theory, can often be defined as nihilism. (Narcissism) Thus, if we have a choice, nihilism (predestination), as it is commonly defined, isn't a factor.

An interesting topic.

You make several assumptions which are philosophically invalid. First of all, how do you know the reality you are experiencing right now is not just a dream? How do you know that it is not a computer simulation? How can you confirm anything is real at all? You cant.

Where does free will begin and where does it end? It doesnt, free will implies freedom - freedom is by definition, without restriction. Thus for free will to have a beginning and an end, it would imply that this is not free will at all but a restricted set of choices. The bottom line it comes down to is this.

Are human neural patterns outcomes, predictable? If so then we have no free will and are simply reacting to events, of which our reaction has already been determined. If not then we are free to randomly make our independant decisions, reacting to each event in a unpredictable manner. That is the origin of free will, freedom of mind, not freedom of reality (though that surely should come along)

You might want to put yourself in Stephen Hawkings shoes and ask "what is the essence of mind?". Is it affected by the limits that the body experiences or by limitations that others project be it mechanical or psychological.

Awareness is not limited to physical form while it shares the experience of habitation in form.

We have the perception of individuality and free will, which I find amazing enough, but there are many experiments that seem to show otherwise. Larger groups of people - cities, countries, religious and racial groups - seem to act in a way that is inevitable.

Our previous environment shaped our mind (personal history) and then our current environment is measured by that mind (personal choices). Even our hopes and dreams come directly from knowing the possibilities of life, and those possibilities are shown to us in the reflections of that life (TV, art, language, culture).

Since it seems to me that all factors come directly from the environment, I believe free will is nothing but self-delusion.

So you consider yourself stuck on a hamster wheel created by those who have been expiring on that same hamster wheel before you?

Thats what we call Sociology.

Boids and flocks...

http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/

From an evolutionary standpoint, it is a survival behavior.

...but...how do you explain hermits and iconoclastic behaviors?



Free will has yet to be defined here, I think...

Mental illness, disease and injury aside, if I drop a pencil, I can choose to let it lie there...or I can choose to pick it up. Ones or zeros. Off or on. Yes or no. Some scientists and researchers have reduced thought to a mere computation. But I make the choice. Ones or zeros. Off or on. Yes or no. The computation is mine to make.

On the macroscale, I can choose to join in with group behaviors - pet rocks, beanie babies, x-boxes, computers, churches, peer review - or I can choose to become something of a hermit and do my own thing. The choice is still my own.

If I join in with group behaviors, I become nothing more than another part of the flock of boids. My choices become limited. My thoughts are not my own.

Just thinking out loud, here.

Very interesting topic.

Or is it? If I take the pencil I am advantaged - I am more attractive to the opposite sex since I now have a tool. If I leave it I risk losing a breeding partner. These types of statements are abundant possibilities that can be called upon through memory and experience and maybe some are more innate. Pressure from these experiences etc will cause a particular "decision". The "decision", then, is an illusion and the action is no more than a complex reflex. "You" do not make the choice; rather as a reductionist might say, "Shit happens."

If...you join then do you surmise you have no choice but to be sucked into the power of the force that sucks all into the flock? Are your beliefs your own or do you have any beliefs of your own, or are you capable of having beliefs of your own?

I don't believe any of us are "stuck", but I believe some people are destined to live their lives in the same patterns. The people who redefine their lives and ideas are the people who contribute to the world. All that is required is the correct knowledge in the correct mind, and a little inspiration. The inspired person is then able to influence the world around him/her and create new patterns. The new pattern will always be based on the previous pattern(s), simply because thats how we assimilate, improve and use knowledge.

Individually we have the perception of free will, culturally we are on railroad tracks that are bound by the rules of the systems involved. The train on those tracks goes by the name of commerce.

Difficult to say, are you freely choosing to believe in free will or is it inevitable that you would believe in free will with the perception of choice?

I am going to have to go with the ladder.

Defining "free will" is problematic in itself, and them making a claim as to whether we have it or not is probably futile. I think it may be more productive to argue about the opposite: define non-free will and then argue that. Let's call the absence of free will "slave will."

If slave will (for all animals and humans) is the case, then those beings will exhibit certain characteristics and will be incapable of certain actions or decisions. We just need to list those things and see if they match the observed human condition.

Suppose someone says that all people have slave will and therefore will be unable to what?

1. Choose what's in their best interest?

2. Want things that they should want? Should not want?

What? What are the properties of people without free will? How will I know one when I see one?

I think the burden is on the one who says we are not free to define this slave will.

Ladder?.. Do you mean latter?

There is a saying, "Everything that exists in reality exists in potential before it is discoved and expressed, or everything that can be imagined can only be imagined because it exists in potentiality and can be, will be experienced"

I would have to say I meant latter Sry I just woke up and it is freezing I wasn't thinking.

That saying seems to resonate Descarte (I think it was Descarte) the whole idea that a blind man has no perception of sight and thus can never imagine sight. I however, favor the first half, in that it is a clear axiom of thought. One must imagine something before it is conceived. A car does not exist in nature. A car is just a compilation of materials without imagination. Without a driver a car is nothing. Once imagination has conceived the idea of "car" and brings it to life, then the car has the potential to be helpful, but is still useless without constant creative energy.

The car already exists. The imagination only recongises what will be. Time being a construct of the mind, experience catches up with the eventuality of the manifestation of the intuitive knowledge.

Well my hats off to the great INVENTORS whos imagination recognized the inevitable.

Slave will is an interesting spin on this topic. Lets take thieves for instance - they thieve for money to fund activities they are unable to afford. If they are addicted to a drug, they cross that social line with a choice that has its parameters amplified through addiction. Would they have made that choice without the addiction? What factors were involved in the original fall into addiction? Its extremely difficult to say for sure.

Others become addicted to the act of theaving itself, something for nothing and a rush of adrenaline are the early defining aspects of this behaviour. This early rush is replaced by behavioural changes that make it difficult for the theif to stop thieving (kleptomania?).

Both of these two scenarios have aspects of slave will, one being environmental and drug induced, the other is habitual. In both cases emotions and body chemistry are major inputs in the decision process. If two people go through exactly the same experiences from birth, only the traits of their biology would differentiate them.

If we assign a scale for the traits of two people, defined by biology and personal history:
2/10 tidyness 6/10 tidyness
6/10 selfishness 10/10 selfishness
8/10 socially connected 1/10 socially connected
3/10 aggressive 8/10 aggressive
(sorry for crap traits)
Then there is no doubt in my mind that different decisions are made by different people in similar situations. Thats the variety of life. BUT...

If we imagine another person who has lived an identical life as the thieves mentioned above and has identical biology and history, would they make the same choices in the same situation? If the answer is yes then I think the only conclusion is slave will is the actual truth, because the biological body and personal history are actually controlling the perception of "making" decisions.

Has no one here felt the pull of inevitability in their lives?

Here's a proof that we have free will by a reductium ad absurdum. It should appeal to the superstitious (relgious) person.

Take the case of the believer who prays for the strength to overcome his excessive drinking habit. Assuming that there is no supernatural deity who pulls all our strings anyway (in which case we wouldn't be free), his praying is an example of an exercise of free will. It is free because 1) he recognizes he needs help to modify himself, and 2) he takes action to affect that modification.

Therefore, one who would argue that we are not free, must also argue that prayer is futile.

Prayer, by the way, is not futile, in spite of there existing no god. The praying person unconsciously hears his own prayer, and his behavior improves. It would be more enlightened if the person would just make this change without a fictional god in the loop.

Sophisticated sensor.

Feedback loop.

Indeed, Hey Hey! I maintain that not only do people (and animals) have free will, but also robots can have free will (if we do the AI right, someday). Decision making is an inherently free process.

The results can be quite costly though!

Like with Bush and Iraq? Blame that on the decisions of the American voters.

Blame that on the politics in general. I believe that there will not be a truely great president for, well maybe ever. The only individuals who care enough to get into politics have such a passion for a set of ideals that they will fight for office, thus we get the polarization of our country. People vote on party lines rather than on their own thoughts and morals. To me this shows that we clearly don't have free will.

Politics are F****ed you eaither pick loser A who is an extreme leftist, or loser B who is an extreme idiot, or you don't vote at all...

But free will has come to the rescue! Look at the recent election results. Common sense has returned to the masses. It took only 6 years of disasterous total Republican rule for them to wake up. Free will in action! Now the Democrats have taken back Congress. Hooray!

We will see how long your hoorays last--I'm guessing they will wait a year or so to screw things up~

We will see. Democrats do government better because Democrats believe government can do well. Republicans think all government is bad, so they don't even try to do a good job. Witness screwed up war fighting in Iraq, deregulation of polluters, and incompetent FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina.

This wasn't always the case. Only since the so-called Reagan Revolution have the Republicans been so incompetent. President Eisenhower developed the Interstate Highway system, for example.

I will remain a skeptic~ I hope you are right, I trust your opinion on this matter a lot more than mine

Thanks. I am cautiously hopeful. This mess in Iraq I wouldn't wish on anyone, but the Demcocrats can get us back on track if anyone can.

Personally im not a war mongerer, hopefully the Democrats will be more peaceful than the Republicans.

I agree with you completely. And ESPECIALLY on your bible comment.

ignorance.... if it were scientifically a virus there would be a scientific counterpart called the cure, but in this case ignorance is just freedom of thought and the freedom to believe in the thought.