Do you believe in Free Will for human beings?
No
Side Score: 80
|
 |
Yes
Side Score: 83
|
|
|
|
|
For anyone asserting that humans do have free will, I have a question: What exactly does "free will" mean? Try and explain in such a way that it will be clear to anyone what you mean, and such that there are no ambiguities. I have a hunch that any strict definition of free will won't match up with what people intuitively mean when they say "free will"; or, put differently, that the usual concept of "free will" lacks meaning. Not that it does or doesn't exist, though I put this on the "No" side of the debate; it doesn't make sense. If you define free will as whether humans have a "choice" or not, for example, the question becomes: "what do you mean by choice?" If you mean merely whether things "could have happened differently", then it comes down to determinism versus nondeterminism. If the universe is nondeterministic, then we have a "choice" in that sense; but so do inanimate objects as long as they're in a somewhat complex system which has nondeterministic behavior. So that doesn't match up with the intuitive notion of free will. If the universe is deterministic, on the other hand, then no, we don't have a "choice" exactly; but this doesn't mean that our actions are "decided for us" in any fashion. They are predictable, yes, but we would hardly say that the fact that any friend of mine could predict I'd choose strawberry (yum!) over chocolate (blegh!) ice cream means that I have any less of a choice, or that my decision was fated. Side: No
I have a slight problem with your statement: ¨If the universe is nondeterministic, then we have a "choice" in that sense; but so do inanimate objects as long as they're in a somewhat complex system which has nondeterministic behavior.¨ Is it possible that in a nondeterministic universe some objects have choice but others do not? I think everyone agrees that a rock doesn´t have free will since it doesn´t possess the ability to think, move on its own accord, cause parts of itself to move, etc. I believe that humans do have free will but what about amoeba? I don´t know but I suspect yes. Clearly the individual atoms in my body don´t have free will and I can´t answer how it is that some configurations of inanimate objects have free will while others do not. (Think atoms that make up humans versus atoms that make up rocks.) I can´t tell you what I mean by choice. In every finite language there are undefinable terms and for me this is one of them. I know it when I see it but I can´t define it. I could only tell on a case by case basis whether something was a choice or not. Side: Yes
Free will is a delusion created by our brain to show that our actions control our destiny while it doesn't. BY conducting a statistically valid experiment of doing a test in different ways for the same purpose with the same inputs, our brain will make the same decisions. We are hard wired into making some decisions. Although it doesn't absolve anyone of any serious crimes :)
Side: No
No one has been able to present a reason that making the same decision with the same inputs means that you don't have a choice. That's just being consistent in your choices. I could decide to jump off a building right now, but that would be stupid, so I choose not to. There's no reason that your decisions are forced if they agree with the same inputs, it's just that your free will decides to be consistent in its choices. I would hope my decisions are consistent, because if free will exists, then those decisions define who I am.
Side: Yes
I'm saying that those choices are purely the product of those inputs. The fact that we make a choice means that we could not have acted in any other way. If you take a shot in Billiards, the cue ball COULD go in one of the holes, but that doesn't mean it's choosing not to. Where it goes is the product of much simpler rules; we are cue balls in seas of confounding, pseudo-random complexity.
Side: Yes
Imagine you create an exact copy of the universe, and the two do not interact at all. If existence really is governed by natural laws, then you could not reasonably expect different outcomes between the two. No two identical systems can take the same input and deliver different outputs. If they appear to, the differences are due to natural laws we do not yet understand.
/nThe human aspect: Free will is a useful illusion given to us by our brains, to prevent quietism. Though it's not within practical means, given enough information about an organism and its environment, you could hypothetically predict every move it makes. The illusion of free will is the product of systems like the brain, much too complicated for us to understand yet. /n"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." -Pierre-Simon Laplace Side: No
You've called people out for making arguments that are justified only within themselves and yet I can't seem to find any real justification behind your theory. I normally try to avoid this particular comment (and attacking individuals for that matter), but this debate seems pointless based off of the reasoning presented here. It seems to me that it matters very little whether free will exists or whether it's all a result of the innermost workings of the universe. In the end the result is the same and assuming that all of our actions are a result of some force that we don't understand is pessimistic at best, delusional is probably more accurate. Its a result of people being afraid of accepting that they are responsible for their own actions.
Side: Yes
My justification is that the universe operates logically in all other arenas, why not this one? Assuming there is no true randomness isn't an assertion; it's epistemically parsimonious. Neither side can be proven by empiricism, but at least mine is logically consistent. - "this debate seems pointless based off of the reasoning presented here. It seems to me that it matters very little whether free will exists or whether it's all a result of the innermost workings of the universe." You're absolutely correct here, it is an utterly pointless debate. But it's fun to think about, for some people. And whatever conclusion you reach will have no impact on how you live your life-- even though I don't believe I actually have free will, there's no reason for me to act as if I don't. - Really? You're going to assume you know why I believe something, and attempt to psychoanalytically belittle me to try to win favor? What if I assumed you wanted to believe in free will because you're afraid humans aren't special in the universe? That's what I might guess, but I'm certainly not going to assume it about you. Side: Yes
While I don't believe in "free will" as usually formulated, your argument is flawed; you say that if existence is governed by natural laws, then outcomes must be wholly predictable given inputs. But physical laws need not be deterministic. There could be an element of random chance; not the kind of "randomness" a dice throw gives you, an apparent randomness due to not knowing the full initial state and not having sufficient computational power and knowledge; but real randomness, where the precise same physical state has multiple possible futures. Side: Yes
"I have free will" only makes sense when we imagine the existence of an autonomous "I". From all we know, our behaviour is governed by a combination of our genes and our environment. That is to say, if one possesses the genes of Bill Gates and goes through all experiences that Bill Gates did, we would behave exactly like the man himself. Where is the freedom to behave otherwise? Is there something else other than genes and environment that determine behaviour? Most philosophers would agree that there is no ghost in this machine we call the self. So, as someone said, free will is an illusion conjured up by our brains. It is a useful fiction to believe that we do have free will and we conduct our affairs as if we do. But in reality, we shouldn't be too quick to praise someone's positive actoins or condemn him for his mistakes. We may just be helpless sods who cannot behave otherwise than how we do behave. Case in point? Just take a look at the life of Tiger Woods. Side: No
1
point
The question is to vague. I did make a free will question,"just right now" Side: No
1
point
there is nothing free will here. Everything you do you work for, you have to. If not you would have nothing. So you have someone telling you to do something day in day out. Free will does not exist Side: No
1
point
I'm not fully committed to this side, but of late I have started myself wondering more and more about this issue. In a cause and effect universe, would free will be tenable? If you put the exact same person, atom for atom/memory for memory in the exact same situation, would they not always make the exact same choice? With enough information, cannot all things be predicted, including human action? Side: No
I think there are too many variables for this argument. For example I think 99% of people would agree that people like Hitler should not have the ability to kill 6 million Jews because he felt like it. Then again theres the argument that people should be able to do whatever they want. Which leads to the before mentioned example. Maybe you should be able to do what you wanted as long as it does not heavily affect people around you. Like, I should be able to walk around school nude because it's my choice, it shouldn't matter if it is frowned upon by society. Yes, too many variables. I am just going to stop now before I write something too long. Side: No
|
Let's say I have two choices: raise my left hand or raise my right. I can do either. This is because I have free will.
- Sure my actions are in theory a product of the laws of physics and thus predictable, but there's something more going on than say, a rock rolling down a hill. A rock rolling down a hill does not have free will. - If we define free will as a branch point where a conscious entity can select one of multiple paths, then yes, there is free will. Side: Yes
You chose to raise your hand as a response to this conversation. A seemingly "random" choice is far, far less than random. When we try to be random, we're actually trying to be unpredictable and inconsistent. We just keep believing it because everyone's fooled.
- But if a rock thinks it has free will, wouldn't it be hard to convince it that it doesn't? This second point of yours doesn't really explain why people are different from any other object in the universe. - That's A definition of free will, yes. But that doesn't really answer whether it's true free will. Side: No
1
point
mmm, perhaps, but to what extent? I draw your attention to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. The argument follows that a double alpha plus (very smart person) realises the limited capacity of say, an epsilon minor (stupid person), and their limited 'free will', so to speak. However, the double alpha plus also realises that while they appear to have free will, they are also limited in the same sense that the epsilon is, that is, they can only move within their intelligence, which, although varied and expansive, ultimately is also limited, hence they only perceive the illusion of free will because they have an inferior standard to relate against. Thus isn't our free will an illusion limited to our own capacities? Side: No
1
point
This misses the point entirely. First, you can decide NOT to raise either hand at all, but you your choice to raise one hand or the other is determined to a large extent by the instructions for you to raise one hand. If you really had free will, you might decide not to raise either hand! ( The fact that you didn't consider this is some evidence in itself for determinism!) Secondly, your choice to raise one or the other hand (should you raise one) is determined by many factors such as your personal history, any subliminal suggestions offered by the instructor, priming effects, or any other myriad influences. If we knew them all and plugged them into a computer, we could predict which hand you would raise (or if you would you raise one at all). Next, there is evidence from EEG studies (see Benjamin Libet) , that your decision is PRECEDED by a neural impulse, suggesting that your decision is based on neural firing that precedes any decision being made. Your argument confuses OPTIONS with free will, and would suggest that any time there is the existence of a choice, this implies free will. This simply begs the question, what determines your choice? Side: No
I believe in free will but I believe it is entirely subjective. If an entity were to know everything about the universe up to a point, they'd be able to predict every event after that point with complete accuracy. But I have no reason to believe that any conscious thing has had enough power to influence all my decisions, so I believe I have free will. Side: Yes
1
point
"If an entity were to know everything about the universe up to a point, they'd be able to predict every event after that point with complete accuracy." This statement suggests you actually do NOT believe in Free Will. You are confusing two different things: 1) the ability to have all knowledge up to a point and 2) the philosophical belief that behaviors are determined by those events that precede it. Side: No
Humans have a free will that allows them to do whatever it is that they want to do. Of course I understand your point that if we knew everything about everyone and exactly how their brains work then we would be able to predict their every move. However, I don't believe that this is the case. Humans oftentimes exhibit very anomalous behavior from that which they typically exhibit (aka the "trendline"). No amount of computing power in the world could accurately predict how people will react in every situation.
Side: Yes
Don't mistake illogical decisions for evidence of free will. We are simply imperfect machines, and we make mistakes sometimes. And we're all extremely variable, so you can expect people to act differently from each other. And yes, no current computer could possibly take all these variables into account. But this would not be the first time someone has underestimated the future of technology.
Side: No
-1
points
Of course we have a free will! Even if it seems limited in some ways, as in 2 choices verses ten choices, we can choose . I can choose to walk or not to walk. I can choose my favorite color. I can choose not to have another drink/cigarette/joint/pill etc. In the case of an addiction, we still have the choice to seek help. This first step to choose for ourselves to get help for our addictions etc, separates us from any other species. God set us apart. He even goes so far as to help us if we choose to ask HIM. " The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid" Hebrews 13:6 in the N.I.V. Holy Bible.
Side: Yes
The bible is (for epistemic purposes) simply a book. Sorry about the Godwin, but Mein Kampf is a book, and it's got just as much sway in a values debate. Instead of citing someone else in an argument, rather explain the concrete reasoning, or you've said nothing. And as for your free will objection, read the other arguments. It's already been postulated.
Side: No
1
point
Can you really choose your favorite color? Is it possible for you to say no to that last drink? We as human beings have always thought we have had a choice. but we are finding more and more how the laws of nature, our upbringing, our very genetics steals these choices from us. some people have, inside every strand of DNA, instructions that say that addiction will rule you. and until you choose, like you say, to seek help that addiction is boss. But i use the term choose very very loosely. It is until they are PUSHED to seek help. until the chemistry in their brains say that they are unhappy. until outside causes come into play. screaming wives, accidents. nothing happens without cause and said causes always push us to our one and only paths. some people will never get help, sometimes the wind does not catch the leaf and gravity holds it down forever. no free will. sorry Side: No
1
point
The main flaw in the "create two identical universes" example is the assumption that's even possible. Even assuming that it's possible, why would it be impossible that the natural laws don't have an amount of randomness in them that could account for differences? So the test you give is useless.
Isn't it possible that even with free will, people would decide the same thing each time? Shouldn't you decide to do the same thing if all inputs are the same? Economic theory says that there's usually an optimal choice in decisions, so even given free will, so shouldn't we decide to do whatever's most optimal for ourselves? It's just that we each have a different measurement of what's most optimal. Side: Yes
1) It doesn't matter whether or not it's possible to create two universes, it's just a thought experiment.
- 2) There's no such thing as true randomness -- only complexity we are incapable of measuring with our limited faculties. - So I think his test is valid. - "Isn't it possible that even with free will, people would decide the same thing each time?" Is it still free will if you always decide to do the same thing every time? Side: No
If natural laws were even a bit random, the universe would be in [even more] chaos.
Okay, I can see you're trying to connect Optimal Choice to everyday decisions. We try to do what's optimal, but we are fallible. So what? We are collections of atoms, and whatever mind or soul we have has no concrete existence as far as we know. So why should our practical interests be affected by natural laws? Just because we do something that seems illogical to a human doesn't disprove that the universe itself is infallibly logical. Side: No
There could be randomness at the quantum level without dramatically impacting the classical level. We don't have enough information to know, and probably never will. I raise the Optimal choice to show that if we have free will, there's nothing wrong with making the same choice again with the exact same decision to make. That's the definition of free will - it's our decision to make.
It doesn't matter that the universe is logical or can be modelled as a machine. We could be pieces that make decisions based on facts and feelings and be determined by our environment but still freely have chosen those decisions. In short, what do you mean by free will? Side: No
Free will sure, every decision we make. Of course you can relinquish it to someone else, or go with the flow and not make waves. You can go against the grain, just to be different. I tell my children every decision they make has consequence, some small some large, make the best decisions they can with the information they have. And since it is their bill to pay at the end of the day, they better make sure the decision was theirs too Side: Yes
Actually, this question is trouble to answer since I don't know. I'd like to believe there is free will? but then again writing that is probably determined already and believing that there is free will probably wasn't of my free will... So I'd want to believe but who knows..? Side: Yes
2
points
The funny thing is all the determinism people use science as their proof. . .meanwhile quantum scientists have known for decades that some things are completely random. Simply put, it is impossible to have randomness and true determinism at the same time. If determinism and free will are the only two choices, determinism clearly fails on its face, and free will prevails. Or you can ignore science. Side: Yes
1
point
This confuses the macro with the micro. It's true that quantum or subatomic particles appear to act in non-predictable ways, but on the macro level of planets and living beings, they follow the laws of physics and are predictable. You WOULDN'T USE THE SAME QUANTUM ARGUMENT TO DISCREDIT NEWTON'S LAWS WOULD YOU OR THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN?? Side: No
I believe in free will for human beings. I also believe in n all-knowing God, and only those who dwell on the two not working with each other would think that it was impossible for both to happen together. My catechist class had a discussion about this. From the religious aspect (well i can really only speak from a catholic point of view), free will is very much possible. Side: Yes
Great debate by the way. Free Will exists. No matter how much stimuli we are able to process, we still are endowed with the ability to choose which path to take. Take a very basic example: we are all aware of what is healthy to eat, and what is unhealthy. If we didn't have free will, and we just always made the "optimal" choice, we wouldn't eat fast food, or transfats, or pepperoni pizza. If we were rushed, we would drink meal replacement shakes, or eat protein bars. However, this is not the case, plenty of people still choose to live on Big Macs.
Side: Yes
I think you're missing the concept of the argument; optimal choice has nothing to do with this. You will choose your meal based on how you feel that day, what nutrients your body needs, and many other factors. But if every single one of those factors is the same, you're going to choose the same thing. Most of the choices we make depend on so many factors, we couldn't even begin to list them all.
Side: No
I vote yes. Some of you want to persuade me to vote no. You believe that forces beyond your control are compelling you to try to persuade me. If you are right, there is no purpose to logical debate, and you shouldn't be upset that I disagree with you. By your own logic, I'm just doing what I have to do. But if we are both make choices using our free will, then this debate has purpose and meaning. People could choose to change their opinions, and that choice could matter. By participating in this debate, you are tacitly acknowledging that free will exists. Side: Yes
1
point
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The statement, "there is no purpose to logical debate" isn't even relevant. It's referring to an emotional response to the debate, not the ORIGIN OF THE BEHAVIOR. We're talking about whether our behavior is a predictable result of natural forces or strictly from inside of each entity. Side: No
I don't think you've read the other arguments, because you don't seem to understand the terms of the debate. And others have already made the points you did. Then again, this has turned into a very long discussion, and it's probably a pretty long read for anyone just joining. So in that case, I'll respond normally. - Making a decision in a debate is just like any other decision, in the terms of the level of choice we're talking about. The choice you did make is the only one you could have, because it's the only one we have empirical evidence for. When any of us come here and make a choice, or change our stance, it's simply a matter of how accurately we can interpret and inscribe the concepts explained here into our Semantic Memory, and how those changes interact with what we already think or know. Any "choice" you make is simply the product of how your neurons fire. Side: No
If you argue that neurons causing our decisions = free will does not exist, then you are turning this into a religious debate. The issue you raise is whether man is merely physical in nature, or whether he has a supernatural aspect (aka, spirit, soul, etc.). If there is a spiritual aspect controlling the body, then free will can exist. If not, then it cannot (because the body is just a machine). I do not think that distinction is correct because you can be an atheist and still believe in free will (see, e.g., Ayn Rand). But the distinction might be helpful in a general way. Because religion implies an absolute moral standard (only possible if freewill exists), I think most religious people believe in freewill, while many secular types do not because of moral relativism. Side: No
0
points
I think free will is one of those things where people can debate for ages but no clear answer will emerge. It's one of those topics where people's definitions vary a lot, and the moderator didn't provide one. My personal definition is the ability to have conscious control over decisions. What I was referring to when I said "when free will exists" was the existence of a conviction that we have conscious control over decisions. This belief can never be truly correct or incorrect, because everyone has different concepts of free will. Side: No
|
