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

[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 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.