Have you ever considered that free will doesn't exist? (NOT pre-destination)

[Ben Simmons 25]

Let me be clear, here... I'm not suggesting anything about the idea that this is all mapped out and it's just a recorded movie playing out. That's not what I'm talking about whatsoever.

I'm talking about the idea that we're just chemical bags floating around and as such, everything about us is a combination of genetics and environmental factors and a series of events playing out only as they ever could on an individual basis, while also being chaotic on a large scale basis.

Bear with me here...

I think a lot of you, dare I say most of you, will agree with me that a 2 year old child is composed 100% of nothing other than genetic and environmental factors. They're just along for the ride. They don't have a say. Everything they do, every noise they make, every reaction they have, everything they "think" and feel is nothing of their "own will". They're just programmed entities carrying out their genes and their environmental teachings.

So... if you can get behind the idea that 2 year olds aren't behind the wheel of the car, do we ever actually "take the wheel", so to speak? If so, when do we do it? And how do you know? In my personal life I've posed this question and most haven't even considered it. And the few that have, ended up only offering emotional objections. "3rd grade"... "5 years old"... "18 years old"... "when you move out of your parents" are all the ridiculous answers that I've gotten...

Again, to be clear, this thread and question is not about saying that this is all already known and that we are 100% destined to do a strict set of events and that's it. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is... have you ever considered that we live both in a chaotic universe AND that you are nothing of your own doing, just a series of chemical reactions playing out... in which every thing you do, say, and "think" is really not of you? Not that anyone is controlling you... but that "you" aren't really what "you" think you are... you're just along for the viewing experience.

And I know it really, really seems like you hold your hand up when you want to. Or you type out an ISH post when you want to. Or you sing when you want to. Or you think what you want. Or you eat what you want. It really, really seems that way. But what if that's just an illusion? I consider this often.

Nobody that I've talked to about this has been able to make a definitive argument as to why we have free will... and that resulted in me looking this up.

Apparently, from a scientific perspective, we are currently unable to know, but perhaps neuro-scientists will be able to definitively answer this question one day. But apparently what is true, is that the parts of your brain that control functions, light up ahead of time and thus it can be predicted what you're going to do. So in other words... if you want to raise your right arm, if you're hooked up to equipment, they can see the brain signal indicating that you're going to raise your right arm... before you actually do.

I've never read about this subject until very recently and I've only read very little since... but yeah... apparently also Einstein said the following...


"In 1931, Einstein, in response to questions about belief in free will, responded with the following comparison of the will of the moon:

“If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.”

Which would lend credence to the idea posed in this thread.

Anyways, I've ordered a few books on the subject supporting both viewpoints, but until then... I wonder what ISH thinks.

[Ben Simmons 25]

Examine your individual thoughts.

Do you ever have thoughts pop into your head that you are completely unable to identify why that thought popped into your head? Doesn't have to be bad, doesn't have to be good, doesn't have to be rational or irrational...

And if you can't explain those thoughts and you didn't generate them, how do you explain their origin? This may be the easiest way for me to try to convey what I'm saying here.

[egokiller]

https://media.giphy.com/media/HhFqXOZzD7gM8/giphy.gif

[highwhey]

i think you're taking the definition of free will too literal.

we still have to abide by nature's rules. jsut because we have free will means we won't defy physics. life has it's own rules as well. you're right in the fact that environment has an effect, but ultimately we do have a choice. isn't that what you're arguing? so there you go.

i think you're confusing free will with GTA V where you can go and do whatever you want in the world. life itself has restrictions.

[Loco 50]

Yes, free will exists as demonstrated by the loss of inhibition with frontotemporal dementia.

The frontal lobe is essentially Freud's superego. It handles every moral dilemma that a person faces. If it's damaged the id takes control. The id is just selfish, animilistic survival.

Do I want to eat? Take the food. Eat.
Do I want sex? Take it.
Do I want to hurt someone? Do it.

Id.

The superego, blocks this. Knock out the frontal lobe and you get severe personality changes. Someone mild and controlled becomes random, violent, and unable to restrain themselves in social settings. Look up Phineas Gage.
Poor guy survived a railroad spike through his skull, but reportedly he changed from a mild-mannered, thoughtful person to a belligerent asshole. He lost his free will and became a slave to his more primitive functioning brain.

Frontotemporal dementia patients are usually middle aged folks that undergo the drastic personality changes as described above due to a loss of frontal lobe cortex of unknown causes. They no longer have free will to stop the ideas that they consider.

Anyone that has dealt with a parent dealing with Alzheimer's has faced similar changes in personality but more gradual than FTD and much later in life, thankfully.

Aside note: It's very normal to have fleeting thoughts of punching someone in the face, of jumping off a bridge, of walking in front of traffic. Everyone has them. In a normal person, they pass and you don't act on them. When they become persistent is when they are problematic and obviously, moreso if they are acted upon.



As for when free will engages, I believe it's the moment you become aware of the combination of your own existence and the consequences of your actions. For some that is a younger age than others. I dare say, some may never become fully aware as our jails are full of people that never understood the meaning of consequences.

Obviously our free will is limited by our biological/environmental capabilities. Most will not be able to will themselves into a professional sport no matter how much they desire/work for it.

As for Einstein, he had a lot of funky ideas that were eventually disproven in not only his own field, but in many other facets of life as well.

:confusedshrug: One of the most brilliant people that ever existed, but it should be comforting to the rest of us that even the best of us can be incredibly wrong.

Neuroscience has progressed profoundly since Einstein's days. Honestly, neuroscience did not even exist as a field until imaging was developed in the late nineties early 2000's. Imaging allows us to not only see what parts of the brain light up prior to movement, but which parts light up when an emotion is aroused, when a memory is stirred, when a plan is thought up etc etc and can be assigned to various regions of the brain very reliably. When said portions of the brain are then damaged those functions become predictably impaired.

Neurotransmitters can and are altered by various behaviors and drugs. If you want to argue that whether or not we obey the thought to alter those nt's was out of our hands in the first place then I suppose it becomes a chicken or egg situation that will never be solved.

[Loco 50]

Examine your individual thoughts.

Do you ever have thoughts pop into your head that you are completely unable to identify why that thought popped into your head? Doesn't have to be bad, doesn't have to be good, doesn't have to be rational or irrational...

And if you can't explain those thoughts and you didn't generate them, how do you explain their origin? This may be the easiest way for me to try to convey what I'm saying here.
Just because you can't explain them does not mean that you did not generate them.

There is the conscious and the unconscious.

[iamgine]

OP need to explain what qualifies as free will.

[Prometheus]

Chemical bags

[warriorfan]

Jason Terry
If there was such thing as free will LeBron would have never gotten outscored by Jason Terry in the NBA finals

[DCL]

u gotta stop watching youtube videos late at night and taking them so seriously. :lol

[Rolando]

This has plenty of implications for religious people. For their system to work, there has to be Free Will. Otherwise why should anybody be held accountable for their own actions. Ultimately this has consequences for our legal system too.

[RoseCity07]

I've pretty much acccepted that idea for a few years now. Sam Harris talks a lot about this. It also doesn't really matter because we feel as though we do have it. It does have a great implications for our criminal justice system though.

Google Robert Sapolsky. He knows a lot about behavior and the brain and he talks about this. This basically means no criminal is truely responsible for their crimes. We still need to put these people in prison but it should make us think about words like punishment. Why would we punish someone for a behavior they can't control?

I think maybe our prisons shouldn't be about punishment. Seeing as that doesn't really correct behavior anyway. We should be figuring out way to help these people that can't help themselves.

[Ben Simmons 25]

i think you're taking the definition of free will too literal.

we still have to abide by nature's rules. jsut because we have free will means we won't defy physics. life has it's own rules as well. you're right in the fact that environment has an effect, but ultimately we do have a choice. isn't that what you're arguing? so there you go.

i think you're confusing free will with GTA V where you can go and do whatever you want in the world. life itself has restrictions.

I'm not talking about defying physics. I'm saying that a two year old's personality is 100% derived from genetics and environmental factors such as having a single parent, both parents, no parents, and how those parents raise them, how well off they are, how much they commit to raising them, etc... a whole plethora of factors, none of which have anything to do with what the two year old has chosen, because he/she chooses nothing. And if that's true for a two year old, at what point do people take the wheel?

[Ben Simmons 25]

Chemical bags

Emotional argument.

[Ben Simmons 25]

u gotta stop watching youtube videos late at night and taking them so seriously. :lol

Has nothing to do with watching videos or consuming any media. Just simply a passing series of thoughts.

[Ben Simmons 25]

I've pretty much acccepted that idea for a few years now. Sam Harris talks a lot about this. It also doesn't really matter because we feel as though we do have it. It does have a great implications for our criminal justice system though.

Google Robert Sapolsky. He knows a lot about behavior and the brain and he talks about this. This basically means no criminal is truely responsible for their crimes. We still need to put these people in prison but it should make us think about words like punishment. Why would we punish someone for a behavior they can't control?

I think maybe our prisons shouldn't be about punishment. Seeing as that doesn't really correct behavior anyway. We should be figuring out way to help these people that can't help themselves.

Sam Harris spoke on this? Interesting. Will check that out. Whether we're right or we're wrong, you seem to "get it" more than anyone that has commented in the thread thus far.

As far as criminals go... I think they present a solid argument that should be easier to demonstrate the idea behind this.

Take Charles Manson... supposedly he was rallying other children around him as early as kindergarten or 1st grade or some shit to beat up specific targets. You can't make any argument in the world that's going to convince me that a kid that young has a choice. And given that he was already acting that way at that age, can we really "blame" him as an adult, in the manner of which you speak? I think the answer is no, but people are super uncomfortable with that. They're super uncomfortable with this entire idea, tbh.

[highwhey]

I'm not talking about defying physics. I'm saying that a two year old's personality is 100% derived from genetics and environmental factors such as having a single parent, both parents, no parents, and how those parents raise them, how well off they are, how much they commit to raising them, etc... a whole plethora of factors, none of which have anything to do with what the two year old has chosen, because he/she chooses nothing. And if that's true for a two year old, at what point do people take the wheel?
i agree, we are the product of genetics and environment. most people are, but, people have proved that they need not follow that same trajectory or path as their parents/guardians.

plenty of successful people throughout history were brought up in poor households. they broke the cycle. plenty of people break the cycle in different ways. in doing so, they proved that free will is very much real and not an illusion.

[Ben Simmons 25]

i agree, we are the product of genetics and environment. most people are, but, people have proved that they need not follow that same trajectory or path as their parents/guardians.

plenty of successful people throughout history were brought up in poor households. they broke the cycle. plenty of people break the cycle in different ways. in doing so, they proved that free will is very much real and not an illusion.

Ok, but who's to say that there wasn't even just a SINGLE environmental factor or a SINGLE genetic variance that resulted in them "choosing" another path? It's impossible to prove. But if you examine it extremely deeply and you really sit back and truly examine your own thoughts and actions, it seems to become self evident. That being said, I wouldn't recommend diving too deep into this hole. Existential thought isn't super healthy, tbh. But it's my favorite.

[highwhey]

Ok, but who's to say that there wasn't even just a SINGLE environmental factor or a SINGLE genetic variance that resulted in them "choosing" another path? It's impossible to prove. But if you examine it extremely deeply and you really sit back and truly examine your own thoughts and actions, it seems to become self evident. That being said, I wouldn't recommend diving too deep into this hole. Existential thought isn't super healthy, tbh. But it's my favorite.
i've read works about existentialism. the stranger by camus was one i liked, but it's self explanatory bc it's absurd to think of life like that. i understand people like to deep dive into thoughts and explore them in depth, but it seems so shallow to consider existentialism as an intellectual theme. it's not. and i hate people that consider themselves intellectuals bc they sit around questioning their own lives.

it's called being depressed and not having anything meaningful going on in your life. healthy minded people don't spend a significant amount of time pondering existentialism. if you want to engage in intellectual discussions, why not do so with something that can benefit your family or community? look at engineering videos and such. if you want to keep in the philosophy family, there are plenty of philosophies that won't lead you to suicide.

i feel like i am the only individual with common sense when i hear someone try to talk about existentialism.

[Ben Simmons 25]

i've read works about existentialism. the stranger by camus was one i liked, but it's self explanatory bc it's absurd to think of life like that. i understand people like to deep dive into thoughts and explore them in depth, but it seems so shallow to consider existentialism as an intellectual theme. it's not. and i hate people that consider themselves intellectuals bc they sit around questioning their own lives.

it's called being depressed and not having anything meaningful going on in your life. healthy minded people don't spend a significant amount of time pondering existentialism. if you want to engage in intellectual discussions, why not do so with something that can benefit your family or community? look at engineering videos and such. if you want to keep in the philosophy family, there are plenty of philosophies that won't lead you to suicide.

i feel like i am the only individual with common sense when i hear someone try to talk about existentialism.

I'm not depressed and I can't foresee a series of events that results in me ever killing myself. If you don't like discussing existentialism, you should never have clicked on the thread. You can go be unpleasant in another thread just fine.

[highwhey]

I'm not depressed and I can't foresee a series of events that results in me ever killing myself. If you don't like discussing existentialism, you should never have clicked on the thread. You can go be unpleasant in another thread just fine.
you yourself said it, it isn't healthy.

what benefits can be gained by spending more time on this subject? each time you ponder this, you lose value for your own life. how is that helpful to you?

[Ben Simmons 25]

you yourself said it, it isn't healthy.

what benefits can be gained by spending more time on this subject? each time you ponder this, you lose value for your own life. how is that helpful to you?

There are certain questions of which I obsessively desire to know the answers. I really enjoy knowing how things work in general.

[highwhey]

alright. i wasn't aiming to be unpleasant, i kind of just when off on a rant for no reason.

[Ben Simmons 25]

alright. i wasn't aiming to be unpleasant, i kind of just when off on a rant for no reason.

:cheers: All good, much love.

[highwhey]

:cheers: All good, much love.
:cheers:

[tpols]

Sam Harris spoke on this? Interesting. Will check that out. Whether we're right or we're wrong, you seem to "get it" more than anyone that has commented in the thread thus far.

As far as criminals go... I think they present a solid argument that should be easier to demonstrate the idea behind this.

Take Charles Manson... supposedly he was rallying other children around him as early as kindergarten or 1st grade or some shit to beat up specific targets. You can't make any argument in the world that's going to convince me that a kid that young has a choice. And given that he was already acting that way at that age, can we really "blame" him as an adult, in the manner of which you speak? I think the answer is no, but people are super uncomfortable with that. They're super uncomfortable with this entire idea, tbh.


charles manson also grew up in youth prisons as a runt where he had to develop his ruthlessness and wit just to survive... another example of inputs and outputs. Thats all we are.

[tpols]

plenty of successful people throughout history were brought up in poor households. they broke the cycle. .


that doesnt prove free will... thats just proves there is a very wide spectrum of outcomes that can happen to anybody, with your examples falling on the outlier end of the scales.

Have you ever seen the movei butterfly effect with ashton kutcher? or read about quantum theory. einstein knew we overestimate our level of control.

[Ben Simmons 25]

charles manson also grew up in youth prisons as a runt where he had to develop his ruthlessness and wit just to survive... another example of inputs and outputs. Thats all we are.

Yeah I mean I don't know Manson's history, but... that doesn't surprise me in the least.

[sammichoffate]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Qadr (destiny) is true. Do some research on what it entails.

[ScalsFan21]

I disagree with Sam Harris on many things. But I think he's bang-on when it comes to the issue of free will.

Truthfully, I find it harder to make a case for free will being real, than the reverse. It wouldn't even be crazy to me to define it as a form of irreligious predestination. The odds that anything other than one's own genetics and environment shape their every action seem so infinitesimal to me. I think the universe is essentially one massive butterfly effect, with all its contents (living or not) on effective autopilot.

A depressing thought? For sure. Dangerous to allow that belief to impact your approach to life? Damn right. But I still think it's likely. If I'm driving down the road and I make a left instead of a right, I don't believe it was a "decision" I made. I believe it was the world playing out as it was always going to.

[iamgine]

Those saying free will doesn't/may not exist, what would be required for free will to exist. What would you call "free will"?

[Prometheus]

Emotional argument.

It wasn't an argument :oldlol: I wasn't really interested in making one at the time, I just found it to be a funny way to describe us. Not even so much as "wonderfully complex biological systems" or "organic supercomputers" or anything which maintains a sense of reverence for our nature. Just "chemical bags"... it's lazy and seems worthy of disregard. It's poignant. It shows how little you think of us all... and therefore yourself, unfortunately. I don't blame you either, it's kind of sensible. And if you're right, then you never had a choice as to whether or not it would become your perspective... no matter how convincing your own internal drive to face these ideas, those very drives are just some unfathomably complex synthesis of genetic predispositions and environmental stimuli... and you are just floating about as a proper chemical bag should.

I haven't studied existentialism, but I'm pretty sure Nietszche believed what you believe. What I do know is that it isn't a new or radical idea - I remember hearing it described by my brother when I was in elementary school. Philosophers often give voice to ideas which have already existed for some time... I wouldn't be surprised if your current position on free will was arrived at within a decade or so of the publication of "On the Origin of Species" by many ordinary men.

There are really only two things I have to say about the idea itself:

1. It reflects a determinism at the heart of the Newtonian paradigm that no longer exists. Quantum mechanics has shown us that the physical world actually behaves in probabilistic fashion. While this doesn't logically suggest or necessitate the existence of real choice, it does provide a logical opening into which real choice could be seen to manifest, should it exist.

2. Why are you so convinced about the two-year-old? Who are you to say that a two-year-old isn't actually making choices within small boundaries (defined by genetics and environment)? Perhaps there are tiny windows of awareness, within which the toddler is aware of hunger (hormonal... ultimately genetic) for a cookie (known via environmental experience), juxtaposed with fear of punishment from his mother (synthesis of genetic hardwiring and experience) who told him he couldn't have one... and perhaps this toddler actually does irrevocably alter the course of history as he chooses to eat that cookie, as both outcomes were possible. I am not saying this has to be true... I don't think it is possible to conclude the debate either way... I just want to know what makes you so convinced.

If you maintain upright rationalism, I can't see why you would feel confident of either free will or determinism. I think it is more rational to say that either perspective may be true.

[ScalsFan21]

Those saying free will doesn't/may not exist, what would be required for free will to exist. What would you call "free will"?

It's a good question tbh... I guess I'd define it as the idea that we are actually, individually in control of our own actions. I'm not saying that things like restraint don't exist; if one dude resorts to violence every time he encounters conflict, and another dude is able to resolve those situations without doing so, more restraint probably exists within the second guy. I just don't think the person is technically "in control" of whether or not he is more likely to throw down.

If someone wants to escape a rut in life and successfully does so, a believer in free will would probably think they made good life decisions in order to achieve it. That they put their foot down and said "I'm turning this shit around", on their own volition. Someone who disagrees would say that it was more likely some combo of their genetics/environment which instilled that desire to improve within them in the first place. That nothing more than a series of events led to the change.

The desire for some to push back on this idea is totally understandable to me, since it seemingly takes people off the hook morally for everything stupid they do in life. In no way am I saying I'd prefer free will not to exist; it'd be much better if it does. And obviously, whether it exists or not, people who approach things with the mindset that they're going to dominate life are far more likely to do so. The debate is more about how that sort of approach (among other things) formulates in one's mind which is in question, I would say.

[iamgine]

If you define free will as being in control, the question is still the same. What would be required for you to say someone is "in control"?

[Walk on Water]

Look up Matt Dilhaunty. There is a belief called compatibilism. It means that even though you

[Prometheus]

OP upon reading this again, I think I misinterpreted you. I don't want to go off on a whole thing though, I'd rather wait and see first.

[DCL]

we all have less free will than we want but more than we realize. my advice is don't spend so much time on this. so rather than focusing on why life turned out the way it did, focus your energies on what you can do with what you're dealt with, and you will probably be more satisfied at the end.

[MJistheGOAT]

If free will is to do whatever you want whenever you want, then no, we have not free will.

If free will is the capacity of doing choices within our limits and enviroment and also a lot of them contradicting our instincts, yes we have.