For the greater part of human history, humans have come to believe that their actions meant something. It was vital to aspire to something greater than ourselves. Having a sense of control in a world that seemed chaotic was rather a necessity for social cohesion and meaningful existence. Nonetheless, If we examine free will from a rational point of view we would soon be realizing that it is nothing but an unsupported assumption — mostly based on emotion rather than critical thinking.
Part of the reason the belief for free evolved was our teleological perception about the world. We believed that we were are the center of it all and that some higher power breathed life to everything around us, for us. We assumed through early religion and philosophy that we had all the power in our hands. Moreover, this belief in free-will ensured responsibility and helped in the development of communal ethos. If people were indeed responsible for their actions, society would benefit by having a solid moral strata. It made sense from a functional point of view and this is the main reason it became fused in such an extent in both politics and religion.
Little did our ancestors know about what makes a human, human. We know today that about bodies are largely influenced by the actions of bacteria, neurotransmitters and hormonal imbalances. Those can be random at times due to the complexity of human physiology. 1 in 10 human cells in our bodies are bacterial. Food affects largely our state of mind.
Perhaps the best argument against the assumption of free will is our culture itself. We are all by-products of both our random ancestral DNA as well as the constant behavior of our family and friends. Just to demonstrate how sensitive the balances are, a recent study demonstrated that a hot cup of beverage can influence massively our perception. Now imagine how all these trillions of daily "hot cup events" add up in the largest scheme of thing. One soon realizes that we are nothing but post-hoc reactive beings.
Recent advances in neurobiology have demonstrated that the microbes in our stomach can affect our mood. Many other studies have also demonstrated similar effects — such as how people with depression have different microbial flora that healthy individuals.
Defenders of free will, would still support then even after all these evidence, humans can have control over their direct actions. This is nothing but an illusion though. Let's take for example a heist. If we are running away from a group of people with guns. (with each carefully placed in different places across the city) our free-will will be influenced. Our running path would be different than the one we would have originally planned. Even if after we would have escaped, we would end end up in a specific place that was not our intention. Asserting that our thereafter decisions are a product of free will is rather pointless. All the events that happened before demonstrate that any current perception of free-will is a self inflicted delusion. Much like the armed individuals, nature guides us in many ways into specific behavioral patterns.
source
Although early thinkers had their doubts about free will, cause and effect as a by-product of evolution eroded the belief. If we are indeed by-products of a line of inheritance then how much freedom do we really have in our choices? Even if the assumption in favor of (some) free will can be made, how one can objectively measure in it?
There is absolutely no doubt that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, memories, and dreams. More so, everything takes place in our synapses 7 seconds before we even come to realize that these thoughts exist. During the 1980's the physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated that the conscious experience of deciding to act (the epitome of free will) is rather a post hoc reconstruction of a series of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.
If one favors of free will, then one should also reject the effects of medicine. If we indeed are in control of our bodies and mood then neither drugs or medication should be able to alter our state of mind. Additionally, changes in our brain structure such as tumors or other trauma can cause dramatic personality changes (e.g someone can become a pedophile).
At the end of the day the belief in free will only exists because people wish to believe that we ought to be accountable for our actions. It is a moral imperative not a by-product of critical thinking. Rationally and scientifically, the truth is rather uncomfortable. If people stop believing that they are free agents, they detach themselves from their actions. Free will does not and cannot exist. Belief in free will on other hand is very much real and a necessity for most people in order to be able to go on.
This article is a bit out of my comfort swine as I do not often contemplate if I have any degree of control over my life. For that, I want to thank you for writing this post. I find it interesting that we have some many cases where our bodies or the environment we are in choose out actions for us, each acting on an individual part of the body at a single moment in time. Thanks again for sharing.
it is physically impossible to have free will in a universe that everything is bound to everything else.
As far as I know, the question if we live in a deterministic universe is still wide open. Still, even if things are not deterministic, randomness doesn't necessarily mean free will.
beautifully put again
Thank you, I appreciate it especially coming from you.
I enjoy thought out comments man.
And I enjoy though out posts, that's why I'm reading ;)
comment so well spoken I had to follow
Thank you! That's very nice of you to say.
Did you freely come to that conclusion? Or is it just what your brain tells you and you can't help it? Either way, you end up refuting yourself. Checkmate...
I think we all wished it was as simple as that, but unfortunately that's no checkmate at all...
Good thought provoking post. Up voted
I will not go to deep into my opinions on this but I do think Free Will is a social construct. As soon as man started to speak we started to create a lot of them! Free Will could be choice(everyday common sense of our actions) or to others it can be an illusion (It's non existing)
Great topic :0)
Thanks for your explanation. I was lost a bit about the post. Tickling time bomb, i must die now. Free will is a choice from whatever dna you have come from,you have the ability to reject that you may think can harm you. Addiction is another broader topic minus free will,enlightenment it is.
indeed. we made free will up so we could hold together our civilization.
🌞
Yeh great post! I've often wondered how can courts decide if someone is guilty of a crime when they are not really in control of what they do ultimately. But like you say the whole system would break down if we didn't believe we had free will. It would get mega complicated!
It certainly does have big implications on society.
I am not saying that people shouldn't be punished even if we don't believe in free will, but it can frame the way the courts look at 'punishment.' For instance, if we don't have free will, then we should make sentencing actually about reforming someone rather than putting them somewhere that makes them worse. Also, I don't want to make the mistake of ignoring the environmental part of what drove somebody into crime. If you live in the hood and are put in an environment that doesn't have a lot of options, you may be more likely to act in an undesirable way. The implication here is that if we want society to improve, it is not only about reforming the way we sentence people but also we have to create equal opportunity.
Exactly!
yeap
^^JUST UPVOTED^^... KEEP IT UP
You've touched on a subject I've wondered about for a while (but lack anyone to have a logical discussion about it with).
A few years ago I read about a bacteria/bacterium? that mice pick up from cat feces that caused the mice to be attracted to the smell of cat urine.
No joke.
That made me wonder, after hearing that 93% of the DNA in our bodies is bacterial (a different statistic, but similar enough to your " 1 in 10 human cells in our bodies are bacterial" statistic to jibe) how much of human activity is being driven by the bacteria in our bodies?
Are today's adrenaline junkies really just expressing what their bacteria are instructing them to do?
:) most people are afraid to be confronted with the possibilities. tough questions.
Then I'll just give you a ;-) and we'll keep it to ourselves.
It's impossible for a human cell to be bacterial. You have your statistic wrong. The statistic is there are 10 bacterial cells for every 1 human cell-- 10:1 ratio.
If that interests you, I recommend looking into gut health in general.
There is a lot of new evidence coming out that suggests that the bacterial makeup in our gut has a huge influence on the production of serotonin and some other hormone that influences our levels of happiness. I think the gut produces 90% of your bodies serotonin levels. I would recheck that stat but it definitely has a huge influence on your body and mood.
I used to ferment vegetables in order to introduce a diverse group of healthy bacteria to my gut. From my understanding, when you ferment them on your own, the bacteria created are as good as the highest quality probiotics on the market.
Thanks for the reply.
Actually, there are more healthy bacteria in home fermented foods than in commercially made.
http://articles.mercola.com/fermented-foods.aspx
super dope!
I try not to think about it since the only way to find an answer one way or the other will be time travel, and even then butterfly effect could invalidate any result, but on a more basic level consciousness itself is a good indicator that free will exists, there would be no point in our conscious experience if we were on predetermined paths. That being said, I'm 99.9% certain we're tethered to a future where godlike AI exists, and that nothing can stop it from existing, you can choose any of infinite paths that all lead to the same thing
there is no evidence that consciousness exists either.
That would be the end of the universe. highly unlikely.
This is a meaningless statement. Of course consciousness exists because otherwise what are you going to call all of this happening around you that you're experiencing?
"Consciousness" is the state of being conscious. If you want to say there's no such thing as consciousness then where does that get us? Because we still know very well that there's a difference between a rock and a human, when we're asleep and when we're awake. If there's no such thing as consciousness, then there must not be an unconscious. We know very well that just we're only consciously aware of a fraction of what "we" are actually "doing".
We don't have to think about growing our own hairs or beating our own heart or the inner workings of our brain synapses. All that's taken care of, so much so that we don't like to think too hard about how much credit we should give ourselves for it. We find that quite unsettling because obviously if it's something we're doing then we're responsible for it, but then we can't bring ourselves to say that either because all the unconscious processes within our body seems just as much happening to us as anything else. We start to wonder about what extent we're really in control of our own thoughts and actions, and where to draw the line between what we will say is us compared to what we consider to be not ourselves.
The point is you're just playing with words. Use whatever words you like however you like but the reality hasn't changed.
If you want to say that consciousness doesn't exist then you need to explain how you plan on describing the same phenomena. Now, I would say you're half right, except that the reality isn't that there's no such thing as consciousness but that everything is conscious just to different degrees. So we're an extremely complex pattern of vibrations, just the same as a metal gong vibrates when you hit it. Now don't misunderstand me here, I'm not saying everything's alive and that rocks can think. What I'm saying that it's a very basic simple form of consciousness. If you don't see it this way then you're forced to believe there's some special point at which this dead lifeless matter like a rock becomes alive and conscious like ourselves. I'm not trying to make words fit reality I'm trying to use words to best describe reality, and that's a very big difference.
Alan Watts: Determinism & Free Will - 32min
Alan Watts - Living in the present (boat analogy) - 5min56s
electrical simulation that renders a given perceived reality. all living things have it.
and water is wet. you are not saying anything.
Much of what happens and you perceive as free-will is like the inevitability of growing hair. For example the older you get the less sex libido you get thus your choices about copulation change.
now. you are free to brainstorm in how many other thousand ways your choices are not yours just by looking at your own body that is slowly changing either by time or the environment around you
I'm confused it's like you didn't read my comment.
Did you stop reading as soon as you got to the first few lines?
So what do you define as sleep if sleep isn't a state where one is not conscious ?
You're also setting up a difference between living things and dead things but you don't want to call that difference consciousness. You've not changed anything you've just lost a word to describe a difference. You're just playing a self defeating language game
.>and water is wet.
We say water is wet to describe the contrasting experience to what we call dry. Are you saying that water isn't wet? That there's no such thing as wetness and dryness?
"Conscious" and "unconscious "describe contrast. You get rid of the word and you still have the contrast you just don't have a word for it now.
random imagery going through your mind. The brain is unloading in order to be able to store new info.
Why should I? You are in need for calling it even though you really have no idea what it means. There is no universal definition of consciousness you know. So, when you stumble upon these kind of "vague" words instead of adopting them try to question their origin and nature.
Not really. I told you. You just don't want to accept it. All life has electrical signal stimulation going on in its physiology. A rock doesn't. You want a word for that? Sorry. definitions speak louder than abstract words.
I was being ironic to you previous statement.
electrically stimulated vs not electrically stimulated
I think people really resist the notion of free will being a myth because they think:
I don't believe in free will but I still believe in trying hard, setting goals and getting at life.
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@edb1984/re-kyriacos-re-alphacore-re-kyriacos-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-will-2017617t13342608z-20170617t235642340z
Nicely written post. I will be checking out Alan Watts. Of my own FREE WILL
Really?
provide evidence
That probably requires a whole essay. To me it's self evident that I exist and that I can differentiate myself from the rest of reality (or what I perceive to be reality). Can I prove to anyone else that I am real...that is another argument altogether without going into a solipsist line of reasoning.
He's playing a language game. He's doesn't actually know what he means.
all life knows that it exists due to the fact that anything alive communicated within itself with electrical signals.
Being aware of one's existence is pretty much the definition of consciousness.
That sums it up. Great article and argument. I couldn't agree more.
In the grand scheme of things there is no free will. You cannot do something that defies the "laws" of nature e.g I cannot decide to jump off a building and expect to float in mid air just because I want to.
great example :)
This is not an example of lack of free will. You can decide to jump off a building and expect to float in mid air. Whether it actually happens according to your expectations is a different matter.
Actually what this example shows is that there are limitations to what anyone can do. It's probably more accurate to talk about degrees of freedom instead of free will or lack there of in absolute terms.
Freewill doesn't mean unlimited power. There's a word for unlimited power which is called "omnipotence." Freewill simply refers to a person's ability to choose between the available options. Crying over the options that are not available to you is not gonna remove your ability and power or free will to choose between the options that are available to you! :]
Any freedom in the physical world is always regarded in the sense of degrees of freedom. If by free will you mean an absolutely disconnected omnipotence, then stating the non-existence of such a concept of free will becomes a trivial and almost meaningless exercise. In any interacting system, the constituent degrees of freedom are constrained by each other through interactions. But to be constrained is not equivalent to be determined. I believe this to be the key issue to any meaningful discussion around the concept of free will.
Stimulus > Response beings. That's it in a nutshell. Humans have mastered the art of developing more and more elaborate mating rituals.
To quote Dr. Robert Ford the character in the HBO series Westworld:
perfect :) you are getting me.
This is definitely thought provoking. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you for me to say that I respect that you can post your opinion, even if it's contradictory, and then allow others to express theirs.
yeah, i wanted to see counter arguments but I haven't seen a single one so far.
Arguments make sense if agents have freedom of thought. When you deny freewill, you end up destroying the concept of rationality and you reduce everything to subjectivity and therefore absurdity. It's absolutely ludicrous to deny what's necessary to make sense of rationality, and then expect a rational discussion. I find it quite laughable to be honest while at the same time sad. Whether this denial comes from theists such as Calvinists whom I have dealt with a lot or atheists who have to ultimately deny freewill as there is no place for it in a world where time, chance and matter is all there is! :]
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@edb1984/re-kyriacos-re-alphacore-re-kyriacos-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-will-2017617t13342608z-20170617t235642340z
What A Great Post,
Interesting but debatable.
I liked how @road2wisdom put it.
"Free Will could be choice(everyday common sense of our actions) or to others it can be an illusion (It's non existing)"
Thanks @hossary
I like posts like this that provoke some thought and friendly debate!
You have a new follower :)
Common sense is not a thing. Look at my previous posts. If you cannot demonstrate that free will exists then it is as good as nothing.
I think the biggest counter argument to free will is analyzing the factors that led up to your choice. If those factors (your environment, experiences, genetics, etc.) changed, would your choices change?
I think so.
I agree. :)
When you can prove that we are not at the center of it all I am open to having a discussion - but until such time - your assumptions are scientifically unsubstantiated.!
If you have no control over your life (as you pre-suppose) then why should I believe one word that you write? I am merely replying to a bacteria or parasite!
I didn't assert anything other than humans are "the center of it all" - as you put it.
You made the claim that humans aren't the center of it all (not me) - don't attempt to divert. If humans aren't at the center then what is - it's a simple question that a bacteria should be able to answer, right?
It was you that stated that 'humans' are not at the center of it all, prove it.
Please produce evidence of a more evolved and intelligent being other than humans - you can't. Be a man (a bacteria or an ape, your choice because in your own words that is what you are).
You made the claim, back it up or correct it! You won't do either I am certain of it. I'm just having some fun with you but this is an important topic as I believe that are spreading mis-information.
bacteria don't have vocal cords not the same physiology as you. In the same respect I don't expect you to be able to fly.
Every single being on earth has evolved "the same". Just in a different way. We are not "more' evolved". Evolution doesn't care about these semantics. Arrogant humans do.
You are religious. You have an imaginary friend. Just leave it at that instead of mocking other things. Prove that your imaginary friend exists and then you tackle evolution and how it actually works.
Prove that nothing spontaneously created everything.
I'm not interested in debating you but I will leave you with this. There is far more evidence for God than there is for naturalism. Following is just one example of the research that has been done.
J. Warner Wallace is a retired Cold Case Police Investigator. He used proven cold case techniques to build a case for existence of God with the evidence that is available. Just like a cold case investigator would solve a crime where there are no living eye-witness testimonies. There is plenty of evidence. All the best!
prove that something that created everything came out of nothing.
there is the same evidence for the existence of God as there is for Harry
Potter.
hearsay is not evidence.
Avoiding the question again and trying to turn it back on me. I have answers, it seems that you don't.
Nothing cannot exist. If it ever did exist we would not be here. Try to imagine no time, space, matter, energy, particles, laws of physics, laws of nature etc - that is what nothing is.
Nothing cannot become something. Something always had to be there.
probably the most stupid and disingenuous comment that I've ever read on steemit.
You are not interested in finding the truth. I've pointed towards evidence from a cold case investigator and you come back with 'hearsay' before seeing the evidence.
There is also Lee Strobel's 'Case for Christ' - Lee was a militant atheist (such as yourself) working as the chief legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. He wanted to prove that there was no God. Instead he found compelling evidence for God.I could cite lot's more research but these two are good starts for anyone looking for evidence like I did.
I'm not writing this for your benefit - your closed minded but maybe someone else that reads this one day will do the research before deciding.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I can't prove a negative.
I can't prove there aren't flying pink elephants
I can't prove there isn't free will
i can't prove there aren't chocolate helicopters
Your evidence is hearsay. Indians that believe their cows are sacred also have evidence for Shiva. Each believer of each culture believes in their own gods.
This is why it is called belief. It requires no evidence.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that free will or god or or exists.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
irrelevant.
You seem upset. You also bothered to write a comment which means i touched a nerve.
:)
Check out Sam Harris's book on Free Will.
I know I said I didn't read it in an earlier post, but I did read Waking Up by Sam Harris and he touches upon tons of interesting science and thought experiments that disprove the notion of self. I am sure that in his book Free Will, he goes much more deeply into the science portion.
Also, @kyriacos, I have been trying to figure out a better way to explain to people the Free Will argument. I think the biggest thing that confuses people is that they think, 'If my actions are dictated by my environment and genetics, then how is it that I feel like I have to push myself to do anything?'
How would you answer that question?
Life is a fucking joke anws. Just enjoy the ride and try not to be an asshole. This is how i respond.
According to to you we can't choose. You don't believe your own logic.
no you are making your own assumptions again
Is there a language barrier? You said try not to be an asshole. How can you rationalise the idea that there is no free will and also say that you have a choice at the same time? Do you believe there is free will or not?
"Recent advances in neurobiology have demonstrated that the microbes in our stomach can affect our mood. Many other studies have also demonstrated similar effects — such as how people with depression have different microbial flora that healthy individuals."
^^^^^ true but MOOD and depression is not the same thing the concept of free will.
Free will isn't a mood
He doesn't care. He think that the bacteria in his stomach make decisions for him, because someone found a correlation between mood and stomach bacteria.
Apparently, the logic boils down to
Tood = free will = since stuff can influence my mood I have no free will.
It's like, freshman Philosophy 101 up in here.
I actually presented plenty of other evidence besides science. Care to put your emotions aside and elaborate like a human being that is older than 15?
The fact that you persist in trying to defend determinism and convince others that they have no free will displays your own internal acknowledgement that others have the freedom to choose what they believe. I can choose to eat, read, watch, and write different things; they will all have an affect on my mentality and future but, as others have already stated, they remain choices determined by my own thought process regardless of the influencing factors.
not really. it demonstrates that i want to have a conversation. you assume too much.
depending on ads on tv or conversations you had in the past :)
How can you be sure that your choices are yours then?
Based on your logic, we're all gods determining the destinies of other gods and atoms are just smaller gods that determine the destinies of bigger gods. The only defense you have is "how can you be sure that your choices are yours then?" How can I be sure? Well, I could go place my hand on something red-hot. I dare say more influences would tell me not to than would but I'm not going to because I'd prefer to preserve my hands to exercise my free will and free speech.
not really.
How do you know that this example was your and not a classic one used by popular culture in order to convey the message of danger :)
Where are those evidences? I can hardly find any. And wasn't that you the one who stated that only scientific method can give reliable data?
I provided plenty of evidence with the links. I also provided a rational argument how it impossible for free will to exist in a universe where everything is connected to everything else.
For those who need scientific evidence I provided science. For those who needed rational evidence I provided arguments.
You can try and debate those.
Your evidences has no significance value. Even the author of the article don't make such bold allegations as you do. Other parts of your article is blah blah blah based on nothing.
Arguments as evidence? You've surpassed yourself))) While in science world we are looking for the evidences to support the argument you are presenting arguments as evidences. You're dilettante and you have proven it once more.
Article about pedophiles has nothing to do with the free will. Don't confuse inclination and action.
But it does. Who are you to determine value anws?
There is no need for him to make. You are the one making the allegation that free will exists. Again, you are intellectually dishonest since you provide no evidence for it.
not an argument.
I did provide both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence. You provided zero. (other than significant amounts of butthurt like in the previous post)
ofcourse it does. It shows how brain physiology can change who you are. A tumor can do it, drugs can do it as well, even a conversation with a special someone can change your future actions.
You could address the fatal flaw in your argument I pointed out in another comment.
Or, you could address the fact that almost everyone here disagrees with you:
"I'm not sure this article even understands the concept of free will. "
"wrong"
"Free will isn't a mood"
"On the level of consciousness there is however free will. I "can choose" "
@maxnachamkin knows the type of anti-rationalism you are promoting:
"The "there is no free will" paradigm is used to shirk responsibility for how someone's actions are affecting one's life and the lives around them."
your mood obviously affects your actions. 1+1=...?
So if your MOOD affects your actions (which you freely perform). Then yes there is free will
Define "freely perform".
Ok @josephd
Saying we don't have free will to CHOSE our actions doesn't make sense. Comparing a feeling or emotion or mood to free will also doesn't make sense bevause free will isn't a MOOD.
Our emotions and feelings lead us to CHOSE certain things. But even if we didn't feel that way we may still chose the same thing.
Free will doesn't equal MOOD!
Ok, but that's not what this is about. Read my other comment
Confused you asked to define "freely perform" @josephd
If your mood is affected by the flora in your gut, this the food you eat then there is no free will. If a cup of warm tea can make you feel warmer then there is no free will. If everything you are and everything you believe is product of your culture then there is no free will.
There is no evidence for free will because simply it is logically inconsistent. Humans are by-products of their environment. They don't and cannot exist independently from their ecosystems.
So you are telling me that if a flora in your gut makes you EXTREMELY depressed, you wouldn't chose to get out of bed if your house is on fire? (AKA free will)
No need to go to extreme examples. It could definitely affect your decision to pick up the phone, eat specific foods..etc
after all, this is how medication works. This is how illnesses affect your decisions.
no such thing as free will in a world where everything is interconnected.
Okay, agree to disagree...This is is circular logic and reminds me of:
Child: hey mom where'd god come from
Mother: well he's just always been here
Child: where did the earth come from?
Mother: god made it
Child: where did god come from
Mom: i told you he's always been here
Child: well who made god
Mother: no one did he's just always been here
^^^^an actual convo i had with my conservative Christian mother as a child. Circular logic. It doesn't answer questions it just keeps returning back to the same thing
Great comments mate! I actually made a video about this very subject the other month and I shared it on my blog today. Check it out! :]
I think bacteria was a single example of how an environmental factor can influence how we behave. Of course there are tons of different environmental and genetic factors that all have influence on how we behave. I think that all of these environmental and genetic factors come together to determine our thoughts and behaviors.
Sadly, this is so true! Thanks for another great article!
you are welcome
Great post. Let us say determinism is true. So, should we have to punish criminals if they have no free will?
But, my point is, we have to punish them no matter 1. or 2. That means that institution of punishing is justified even if 1. - if by definition agent is NOT GUILTY.
Why? Because in deterministic world institution of punishment has a causal role, and if we remove it - new causal relations will be established, so we will make a deterministic world with crimes but not with deterring institution of punishment, what leads to chaos. The point is - people have to be punished, not by criterium of their guilt, but their behavior.
Since when punishing criminals stopped crime anyways?
You can't define guiltiness by free will
Well, sure, if you count free will as the end result
there is always another option
most criminals rule in high offices. Anarchy exists for the upper strata. is the lower strata that follows the laws and regulations.
It is reasonable to assume that removing punishment institution just can promote more criminal. That is almost obvious.
You can't define guiltiness by free will
Well if we agreed there is no free will, we, of course, know that we can't define guilt via the notion of free will. But if someone holds that for someone to commit crime necessary pre-condition is that he could have done the otherwise, but he didn't. He commits crime by free will. The point of determinism is that he actually COULDN'T do the other.
most criminals rule in high offices. Anarchy exists for the upper strata. is the lower strata that follow the laws and regulations.
Ok, but that is another story. That is ideology. I talk just about relations of determinism, free will, and punishment. But social injustice narrative , well yes, but that is another item. Anyway, keep going. Your post was good.
Norway disagrees with you|
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
:) I think Brasil disagrees with Norway
how so?
We are not living in a society of saints. It is tempting for people to use their power position on they behalf if they can (no matter on a big politicans scale or a little street thug scale). There are always people who think they can not be caught, that they are clever more than the system, or simply not think at all, just act. They are de facto criminals (not always de jure). Let say it is 10 % of overall population.
Now, think of the majority of population. They don’t do crime, not because they are simply better, but because their neural networks are learned (completely fits with determinism!) that crime is not acceptable behavior. In forming their neural networks (brains) to think so, a big causal role has idea of punishment. Not only the idea, but experience: personal experience (growing up, upbringing, rising), or learning from other people bad punishment experience. The punishment institution has been built into them since childhood, so they internalize it in some ethical code. So they don’t think any more about it, they simply act well and play according to rules. That is why they don’t make crime.
Now, remove institution of punishment and you will get chaos. You’ll get all that neural networks left to learn to act ethically just on weak (what empathy? Intelectual contemplation on Good and Evil? Come on…That is bullshit). We are not living in a society of saints!
This post received a 47% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @kyriacos! For more information, click here!
I have come to read this after commenting on another article by @amarie which talked about this very article. I think it is appropriate for me to reproduce most of that comment here. I'd like to read whichever you may have to say on this. Here it goes.
The principle of causality is not incompatible with the existence of free will.
From a physical point of view, the principle of causality is a statement regarding the time ordering of events which have some causal relation between them. Simply put, it states that effects cannot chronologically precede causes. If you take time as an absolute concept, this is a rather trivial idea, but in a relativistic model of the universe, which requires dropping the notion of time being absolute, different observers can make very different reconstructions of the history of a given set of events. What they absolutely need to agree on, in order for causality to be in place, is in finding causes happening before their respective effects.
Now this principle of causality is not synonymous with determinism, particularly causal determinism. Briefly, it states that every single event in the universe is a necessary consequence of a set of preexisting conditions which may be regarded as the causes of the event, and the event their effect. And while the principle of causality is profoundly embedded in any formulation of the accessible reality, probably because it reflects a basic feature of the universe, causal determinism is completely put at bay by quantum mechanics' description of the most basic constituents of reality that we know of.
At the quantum level, an event is not a necessary consequence, but a compatible consequence of a set of preexisting conditions. For a given configuration of a system at some given instant, there is not a single necessary point in configuration space for the system to move to. In a not very rigorous way, one can think of the system as accumulating potentials for evolving into a (possibly large) set of points, from which one is eventually chosen according to a probability distribution. Even though there are causal relations between events (in the sense of the principle of causality), there is no causal determinism in quantum mechanics, at least not in the classical sense.
Now, how does this relate with free will? A completely farfetched argument would be that the inherent uncertainty underlying the quantum mechanics' form of causality proves that there is free will. I think it should be easy to see how this is an unreasonable stretch. However, quantum mechanics does tell us that, at the most basic level that we are aware of, reality is not really deterministic, but more of a stochastic nature. If we assume that consciousness and, therefore, volition, operate on the basis of biochemical and electrical processes in neural networks, and that at least some of these processes occur according to quantum rules, then there is a lot of space for some level of non-determinism to be part of consciousness processes.
In summary, even if the classical realm of physics seems completely deterministic, free will might still be perfectly compatible with it, because at the smallest scales the apparently deterministic reality in which we live is actually a very fuzzy succession of probable configurations and outcomes.
You can't bridge the micro-cosmos with the macro since it does not affect us directly.
Moreover he quantum events that happen in other people's minds affect your own "Free will".
Before making this essay you should try and prove/demonstrate that free will exists by using at least a rational example that is free from determinism.
As should have been clear from my comment, I do not propose to prove the existence of free will. I actually do not know for sure it it exists or not. My thesis is clearly as simply stated at the beginning: the principle of causality is not incompatible with the existence of free will. Then, I go on to distinguish between this principle and the idea of causal determinism, which is one of the most assumptions on which the non-existence of free will is based upon. I argue that causal determinism is not a universal and fundamental principle underlying physical phenomena, at least at smaller scales, and that this lack of determinism leaves space for some sort of free will to exist.
You seem to insist on the idea that, if the options available to someone are not infinite nor equally likely an accessible, then there is no free will. This is very odd to me. Could you maybe formulate a clear definition of what you mean by free will? Because it seems to me that we might actually be using the same words to talk about different concepts.
if you are making such a statement surely you need to prove that it exists.
Let's talk with examples then. You watch an ad on tv with subliminal messages for buying a burger. You buy a burger 3 days later because you are hungry. How do you know you have not been influenced by that ad? How much of that "will" was really "Free"?
I hope the example helps
My statement is a conceptual one, not an empirical one. It simply states that, within a logical framework, two given concepts are consistent with each other. To ask for proof of the realization of a given concept in reality is a misleading way of not addressing the logical issue that is actually addressed in my statement.
Regarding your example, it doesn't provide, as asked, a clear definition of the concept of free will. It simply illustrates an interaction process which modulates the accessible choices and their likelihoods, not an elimination of all alternatives except for one necessary consequence. I urge you to provide a definition of free will in order for us to establish a common basis of understanding.
Definition: Free will is the assumption that human beings can take actions or make decisions independent of environmental stimuli
I thank you for providing this definition.
If I take that definition of free will then I agree completely that it does not exist. The existence of such a form of free will would be the same as saying that human beings are of a metaphysical nature, completely disconnected from everything else. It would be a self-evident nonsense.
Humans and their minds are physical processes which are in constant interaction with their surroundings. Besides that, being composite systems, a human being's several constituent parts also interact among each other. Interactions form causal structures along the evolution of systems. These very basic concepts underlie the entirety of our scientific understanding of the universe.
I would, however, propose a different definition of free will, one which might actually be subject to a meaningful discussion. While it is an evident truth that actions and decisions are causally influenced, through interactions, by a number of internal and external states of affairs, I argue that the structure of such causal relations may not be deterministic in nature, but rather probabilistic. This hypothesis is grounded on the observation that, at its core, reality does not seem to follow causal determinism.
The question I would then posit is: given a certain action or decision taken by a human agent, is it a unique necessary consequence of preexisting conditions, or just one among a causally consistent set of possibilities? For me, this constitutes the real open question regarding any sort of free will, which I would define as human agency and volition, as a system, having a consistent room of possibilities to evolve into, instead of a single necessary consequence.
Stating that no absolute freedom exists in the physical world seems to me like stating that the sky is blue. I will appreciate your comments on my observations.
Also, it is certainly not true that the micro-cosmos and the macro-cosmos are causally disconnected. I don't know where you have taken this idea from. Could you elaborate on this, please?
I am not a physicist but I haven't seen any studies that breach the micro with the macro. in fact this is the greatest problem of all physics and why gravity is such a peculiar thing. :)
This is not the greatest problem of physics. You are probably alluding to the difficulty in formulating a quantum field theory of gravitation, which does not mean at all that the micro-cosmos and the macro-cosmos are causally disconnected. Several examples of macroscopically observable quantum phenomena exist, namely superconductivity and superfluidy. Current electronic technologies, whose functioning relies on the quantum properties of semiconductor materials which are used to build transistors, are ubiquitous manifestations of quantum laws underlying the operation of macroscopic systems. Then, there is Ehrenfest's theorem, which attempts to illustrate how classical laws of motion for the expectation values of a system's kinematical and dynamical variables may be derived from quantum mechanics. Additionally, there are some more recent experiments and theoretical ideas which support the connection between micro and macro phenomena. Some examples are the quantum entanglement of many-particle systems (which is relevant for quantum computation) and the concept of decoherence as being at the core of the emergence of classical behavior on the basis of a quantum reality.
Again, none of this is intended to be proof of the existence of free will. It serves only to illustrate how causal determinism is not a very accurate model of the universe as far as our current best understanding allows us to see.
let's follow the conversation on the other thread where i provided a definition.
I'm not sure this article even understands the concept of free will. Most of what it says about outside influences shaping our thought patterns and actions is correct. However, the term "free will" means that we can indeed make our own rational conclusions and forge our own path. As opposed to the opposite which is to be controlled in our EVERY thought and action. Where our ability to choose has been stripped from us and forces our every decision, thought or action to be put in the hands of ...whom....GOD? the government?
And we ARE accountable for our actions! As stated, I understand that there are a lot of potential influences that can cause a person to act a certain way but it is still a choice. We can CHOOSE to educate ourselves and gather new influences to make a better and more informed choices.
I understand the concept of freewill and I'm about 50-50 that it exists, leaning more and more towards freewill being an illusion with each passing day.
I have a hard time connecting the dots between the "big bang", a supposedly "mindless" or "choice-less" event of pure energy, sending energy fragments that we call "elements" out into a universe, all apparently following mathematical formulas (physics and chemistry), to this point in space-time where I'm supposed to believe that choice has been born with consciousness.
The more I ponder it, the more it makes sense to me that the contents of my mind and the movements of my body are influenced purely by the complex formulas that were inherent in the pure energy prior to and during the big bang; that no "new influencer" called freewill ever entered the picture at any point along the evolution (expansion) of the universe.
Now, it's obvious that there's an "apparent freewill", the real sense of having choices and thinking/ feeling out of our own volition, but how can we, in our admittedly limited state of knowledge, know for certain the real cause or driver of our thoughts and actions?
Does a hydrogen atom get to decide the position of its single electron? Does it have a choice whether it forms a covalent bond with another hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom to form water?
Quite frankly, I don't know. Maybe all atoms have consciousness just like us. But even that isn't enough to prove freewill. Maybe they only have the illusion of freewill, just like the more complex molecular structures that are humans.
I think you do know. You just find the question incredibly interesting. As do I. Still, the fact remains that you're trying to convince a human being and not a hydrogen atom. So, your own actions concede to the likelihood of free will. As does the original post. Don't get me wrong, its amazing to consider how many factors can influence a single momentary decision.
No, I don't know. How could I know?
What do you know? I mean, seriously. Who were you before you were born? Were you trillions of "lifeless" atoms? What or where are you going to be after you die?
Now, from this foundation of having not the slightest clue about how to even begin to answer these questions we're going to try to ascertain whether we have freewill? People are arguing back and forth about gods and God and all kinds of wanky ideas -- it should be clear that we're all lost on this topic. We have our religious freaks that "know" God exists and that He will save us, then the science freaks that "know" God doesn't exist and are certain that death will go down like ________.
No...just. no.
Admit it. Nobody knows a damn thing about any of this, we just want to convince ourselves that we do because knowing gives us a sense of comfort. Well, I don't want comfort, I want reality.
All of these arguments are old and have been rehashed over and over again in all forms of media, literature and conversation. Ultimately we all have to come up with the answer that allows up to sleep at night or that drives to the asylum. For me personally there is no question that we have free will. The reason we have it may be another question entirely. Maybe, as some have speculated, we were brought into existence as a way for the universe to experience emotion. Maybe the ancient aliens designed our organic computers (brains) in these animal shells as an experiment or a place to transfer their consciousness (which is why some people can see past lives). HOW we came into existence was not of our doing or choice. How we DECIDE to live our lives is exactly our choice. More and more the government is trying to take away or limit the available choices. This is the purpose of establishing the class system and then setting up laws to ensure absolute obedience to authority. Soon they will want to start DNA testing to decide genetic predispositions for attitude and behavior so they can sort our children into the jobs that they need filled and dispose of the ones not fit for a future society.
We have to believe in free will because that is what gives us the power to change and grow. A guy can overcome his addictions because he CHOOSES to do so. His body and all other influencing factors demand the addiction but through the effort of HIS WILL. HIS ability to CHOOSE he can gain control and power over his body. It's not easy but it can be done because he has the ability to choose.
I disagree. We don't need an answer and we can't have one.
I admit that I know essentially nothing about the true nature of reality and I sleep like a baby at night.
And, don't get me wrong, becoming a nihilist and apathetic over affirming to ourselves that we're powerless is a self-defeating and stupid thing to do to oneself. By every means, if you feel you have power to do something positive in your life, DO IT!
Yes, go with the flow of feeling like you're in control. I'm not saying that we should act as if we're leafs in the wind. All I'm saying is whether you do something or not, although it may always feel like it's "you" doing it, it might have nothing to do with a "mind" and a "body". It might just be that you're energy in the position of carrying out this function of the complex equation of the big bang (universe), just as individual atoms go through their motions to make these "higher functions" possible.
If free will didn't exist why would you think it matters?
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@edb1984/re-kyriacos-re-alphacore-re-kyriacos-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-will-2017617t13342608z-20170617t235642340z
How can you do this if you admit that
"Most of what it says about outside influences shaping our thought patterns and actions is correct."
irrelevant. logical fallacy. begging the question.
Outside influences can indeed influence us but we then MAKE A CHOICE on how we will respond to those influences. That is free will. If there is no free will then who is the puppet master pulling the strings? God, fate, destiny?
This follows an old argument from bible studies (back when I was involved in that sort of thing). Free Will vs Predestination. Predestination follows the belief that God has already decided who is a part of the redeemed and will go to heaven. Because he can see all of time and already knows your actions and outcomes before you were born. However, even in the same scriptures they try to use to prove this falsehood it has examples of when God Himself was surprised by someone NOT doing as they should have according to all of their background indicators.
So my point still stands that outside influences have a huge part in our decision making process. At the end of the day, though, it is OUR choice. Free Will
Usually people who tend to lean on the belief that we lack free will are in reality just trying to justify their behaviors. It is their scapegoat for anything not deemed socially acceptable. They will just say "I can't help it...I was made that way"
If you see a billboard ad of a hamburger and the next day you decide to eat one than how much of that decision is yours? When you see tv ads with so many subliminal messages, how do you know they are not changing your decisions?
We STILL have a choice. Advertising is a great example of outside influences.
I think in your example you are questioning not free-will but the strength of will power. We all have differing levels of will power. The ability to overcome these influences. That is why some smokers can chain smoke for 20 years then put it down and walk away. While others will try but always return to smoking over and over. They lack the will power to fight the urges.
The reason advertising is able to influence most people about simple things - like what to eat for dinner - is because we don't care enough one way or the other. Most people don't put much thought into their dietary intake on a meal by meal basis. So the influence works. A VEGAN on the other would be unmoved by this advertising because he actually cares about his dietary intake.
This is getting to be too long. So I will digress and just say thanks for the discourse. I really did enjoy it!
lol. A Vegan is the most brainwashed of all since humans have stomach flora that is designed from evolution to digest meme. They just bought into another meme. hence making yet again my point.
:)
LOL!...I can agree with your statement about vegans. I was only using them as an EXAMPLE of people having the FREE WILL to choose. So MY point is still valid!
Actually, you just helped to prove my point further. Since according to you part of the natural influence of "stomach flora" in our own body would say eat the meat. They use their own will power to overcome that influence. Because they chose to. WE make choices based off of our understanding and parsing of information that is given to us. Still a choice. An influence is ONLY an influence NOT a command. So that once we hear or see something we somehow become a slave to it. Humans still have the free will to choose for themselves how they will respond.
“Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation.”
― Viktor E. Frankl https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2782.Viktor_E_Frankl
There are 2 things in play here, one is your destiny and the other thing is your free will, you cannot control your destiny but you can control your free will... according to many books... maybe this is not what many people believe but this is the truth as well... follow me @jzeek thanks.
once again your post leaves me stunned
thank you
Upvoted. There's a book called The Soul of the Marionette, and one of the ideas the author shares is that the Gnostics were looking not for "freedom of choice" but for "freedom from choice", which ties in with the Hindu concept of Isvara Pranidhana or surrender to the will of the divine, which BKS Iyengar emphasizes is not the same as "doing what you think God wants".
Thank you for this. I will make sure to check it out
Cool.
I really enjoyed reading this post. I agree with the essence of it. We only have the illusion of free will. It's something I've been wondering about myself for a while. Thank you for sharing!
you are welcome
I really enjoyed your thought provoking post. I've often contemplated this idea myself, going back and forth between believing that we do in fact have free will and then believing the opposite. My current view on this is that our default is to not actually have free will even though we believe that we do but that it is in fact possible to gain free will, although that is likely very rare. I think as we expand our own consciousness and really become aware of the true possibilities and choices that are available to us, only then do we even have a chance of exercising free will, or some form of it. I don't think we can really ever be completely free, mainly because it's hard for us to be aware of many of our own constraints, but I think it's certainly worth pursuing.
well said
This is a very biased, closed minded post.
Who is to say we aren't the "center of the universe"?
The fact is that no one really knows what this reality is. Science and religion provides idea, but no one is certain on what this is.
Some believe we are inside of a computer simulation.
Virtual reality technology is going to make it possible for us to create our own realities. Maybe we are already inside of a virtual reality.
One can come up with endless possibilities when on the topic of the unknown.
To speak as if you know, is silly.
Hey mate! I actually made a video about this very subject the other month and I shared it on my blog today. Check it out! :]
I disagree, i think that free will is real. I also believe that predestination also plays a role. You might ask how could both possibly play a role.... it just logically doesn't make sense. That is true that logically you cannot have free will and predestination both being true yet i think that we are created by an infinite force that knows the outcomes of everything and yet at the same time in this beautiful thing we call life there exists free will to choose :D
and who/what made that force and does that have free will? :D
That force always was and always will be and it does have free will. I understand that it is hard to grasp it with the mind fully and it might not make sense. But i can ask you also can you prove to me your consciousness? That whatever you are experiencing you really are experiencing? Or should i just believe you?
If it's hard to grasp then how did you come to realize it? Where is your evidence?
You are the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you. Not me.
Faith that there is a force that is eternal that always was and always will be. Same way that i just simply believe that you are conscious, and i believe i am conscious... no need for any scientific research on that... we believe it to be true and we cannot prove it simply because we cannot prove anything.
ok, i'm going to weigh in on this....... your use of "studies" and "scientific data" really do not mean a whole lot. Anyone can come up with a study, or data that supports their theory....it doesn't always make it fact. After parsing your post i was left with a feeling of "is it possible we do not have free will?" and after giving it much thought i thought about what exactly "free will" is . i have come to the conclusion that "free will" is simply a conscious choice one makes, nothing more, nothing less.... A choice. sure there are many things that can influence a choice.... but does that determine that we do not have free will? certainly not. because "free will" is simply making a conscious choice, regardless of what may have influenced the choice, the choice was still made. See i thought about your theory that "free will" does not exist. now i had the choice to simply not comment on the post, or comment on the post... there was nothing compelling me to make either decision, to comment or not comment. I chose to comment, the reason why i chose to comment is irrelevant, i still had to make that choice....that reason alone shows that free will exists...as the definition of "free will" states "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." it was of my own discretion that i chose to comment, nothing more than influence does not make the action, but rather lends itself as a reason to choose to act, or not, upon it. influence alone cannot make the act, someone must consciously make an effort to act or react......
I used several forms of argumentations including scientific to support my argument.
how do you know which choices are yours then? :)
because i consciously made the choice. Regardless of influence i still had to make the decision...which is a choice. i mean bacteria didn't say "hey, buddy....you should comment on that shit", nor did all of your "several forms of argumentation" while they may have been influences which lent themselves to my choice, They didn't make the choice.. I did. it is somewhat of an insult to my intelligence to say that i am not intelligent enough to make a decision. it is tantamount to my saying you didn't author this post... for all i know a box of cornflakes wrote this and put your name on it.... But alas i am intelligent enough to know a box of cornflakes are incapable of doing such a task....
Sure you made a choice but the constituents for making it were not yours. If a computer prints something you wrote it doesn't mean the computer wrote it.
true, but the computer didn't have the free will to "choose" wether or not to print it .... that is where free will comes into play... it is the free will to decide wether or not to act.... but lets not fool ourselves into thinking we humans are alone in having free will, but we are alone in having the intelligence to know why we are making those choices.. An ape may choose to eat one fruit over another, but it does not necessarily know why it makes that choice....we humans not only know why we made the choice we have the ability to explain why we made the choice.... which is in a nutshell what free choice is, making a decision or choice, and knowing why we made that choice, regardless of consequence... it is like a theif who steals, he knows it is wrong, that it is against the law and that there are negative consequences to stealing...but he chooses to steal anyways. If our free will is predetermined as you believe, then there is no choice there is only reactions...which would also mean there is nothing out of sequence, or out of balance, that everything in the universe is already mapped out and that every action and reaction is already accounted for. If this were so then we would have the ability to stop crime before it begins...oh, but then that would also be a reaction and already planned out as it was preordained in your theory... Do you realize how rediculous that sounds?? by making the assumption that free will doesn't exist you are saying that we allow suicide bombings happen on purpose because it was already preordained... or that planes crash because it was meant to be... i'm sorry, but there are more instances that support free will than support preordainment...
Actually the computer (us) is programmed to print specific things at specific times....
the computer(machine) does nothing unless it is given imput from(us, the human being with free will and choice)to do a certain task.. whereas (us)the human being makes choices without having to to be given imput or be told to make a choice.... I know, it is hard for you to admit you are wrong, that my friend is the free will telling you that despite the evidence, you are still going to use your free will and ignore the imput and make your own decision....
Free will allowed you to post this article. You could have made the choice to buy a bottle of whiskey instead.
Society requires that we are responsible for our actions. It is imperative whether in a civilized or tribal society. Our choices create change or we can go with the flow; beware the hive mind. There are some articles I've read that describe Choice vs. Choicelessness, you might enjoy them.
Have a good day. Or bad. Your choice.
Like the band Rush sang, If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. :-)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
No it didn't. My past experiences about philosophy, earlier debates in posts and even my education pushed me to write this article. The decision was not mine at all but a conglomerate of different instances.
irrelevant. also. 'society' is a very abstract concept.
That quote alone demonstrates that free will does not exist even further. You are answering your own question :)
Society (or civilization) are man made constructs. Many things are.
More Rush lyrics:
"You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will."
The lyricist, Neil Peart is calling Free Will a choice. The song itself is about how we don't have to live our life in chains. We can keep our slave jobs or blog on Steemit, as one example.
Great comments mate! I actually made a video about this very subject the other month and I shared it on my blog today. Check it out! :]
He can call it whatever he wants. No matter what we believe our life has chains. You are bound on this planet for example when there are trillions new worlds out there. no matter how much free will you have, there is nothing you can do about it.
Are you trying to explain causality? I am trying to understand if you're trying to use science to prove or disprove (a) philosophy is wrong or right? On my end I am just offering up an opposing view (I think). I am not sure there are any truths in philosophy. There are beliefs, some of which are more powerful than truth, math or science (obviously). If you watch the movie version of the Ayn Rand classic, The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper, you might appreciate the concept of free will a bit differently. Thanks for your replies @kyriacos. - I might be understanding you a little better.
watch this. it might help
I watched the entire video. I agree that the justice system is flawed. However, they didn't prove a lack of free will. Even the Whitman example was ridiculous. If he had the clarity and prescence of mind to know that something was wrong in his thought processes and then WROTE IT DOWN. Then he also had the ability to choose to seek out help. He could have gone to a doctor instead of the clock tower. I believe he had other motives that are unknown to us but wrote the letter to offer a scapegoat for his actions. But since everyone is dead we will never know.
We should always be striving to educate the next generation so that they can make better and more informed choices. We are robots BUT we are robots that have gained consciousness and self awareness. We have gained the ability to choose. This is the point of free will. If we lack the ability to choose then we are not ALIVE. We are a THING and our lives and deaths have no meaning. This type of thought always leads people like this guy trying to create the "magic" pill he described so that they can force everyone to live by what THEY have decided is the best possible version of humanity.
There's no reasoning with people who've already made up their mind they know the answers.
it largely boils down to the definition of 'free will ' one uses.
If you mean some kind of supernatural ability to influence physical systems by 'modifying' physical laws according to your wishes, then no, it doesn't exist.
But if you mean it's the privilege of being made 'aware' of a large portion of activity that is going on in your brain, and this real-time feed of information feels to you like you're in control , then you're essentially correct.
.
We exist as observers and not influencers, consciousness is the byproduct of brain activity, and not the other way round (this picture leads to all sorts of supernatural pseudoscience)
It cannot exist either way because everything is bound to everything else.
feeling you are in control does not mean that you are.
We are social animals. We influence each other and our environment which in return influences us. This is a pretty straight forward fact.
it doesn't matter, I already mentioned consciousness itself is a byproduct. Your role is being an observer. You're in the passenger's seat while the nature is the driver, and you're informed of literally everything that interacts with you, hence the illusion. Information and sensation (qualia) of information is all there is.
I'm not even talking about social or cultural influences here, that's irrelevant. My statement was based on the fact that laws of physics are for everyone, and immutable. And the existence of free will requires one to tweak those laws, for there to be some kind of freedom from this order.
Also, when you talk about being influenced by our environment and other people, it can get misleading because that's really not how one should go about arguing for or against free will.
I think you are confusing input vs output. Humans are much like data machines. they learn from their environment and then output more data. Each set of data affects individuals. No single choice at the end belongs to any individual.
Somni covers this up pretty eloquently
No , I'm not confusing anything. In fact, what I said implies this as well -
My point was that if you begin discussing free will from a high- level point of view, that is, human behaviour - a result of an incredibly complex process, it can and will lead to a lot of confusion, as can be inferred from the other comments in this thread. Instead, you could talk about the general case, from a low-level (physical) point of view to show that free will as a concept in itself is flawed. Then you'd have shown that in general , no organism - at any point in the past or future, is capable of "free will" . For example, if free will exists, then each sub atomic particle has free will of it's own, because we are nothing but a huge collection of these particles, and free will cannot be an emergent property of a bunch of different things put together. That would be an absurdity.
This intuition comes when one is able to grasp the deterministic (purposely avoiding talking about quantum mechanics for now because it will take much more than a comment to expound on why 'randomness' of quantum mechanics doesn't mean free will) nature of reality.
this is what i tried to do in the post - hence the many examples. I said the assumption of free will is false. it has no basis other than a religious one.
even in quantum mechanics the observer can alter the experiment. lol
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
that's a pop science literature obfuscation, "observer" really means any particle that is interacting with another particle, it doesn't need any human interference, but anyways, the inherent 'randomness' present in QM is far from free will.
You mind if I turn parts of your post and comments and my comments into a blog post? Some thought provoking stuff.
Most people dont care to define free will when they talk about it because their aim is just to appear intelligent by mentioning free will and having opinions about it. Its like the people who say E=mc^2 or that everything is relative. Its just apes repeating buzz words.
Before we can decide if we have a free will or not, we need to clearly define what free will is (and also what we are). But making a final decision or reaching consensus on this is an impossible task on its own.
there is no single definition. Heck, one needs first to demonstrate that free will exists. This is why i gave multiple arguments.
Great post. I disagree to an extent. We can definitely reprogram ourselves and do whatever we want ( the only hinderance might be IQ but you'd have to be pretty low on the stuff not to be able to change and develop yourself) Maybe I misunderstood the post a little bit, and in not disagreeing that we are in many ways "controlled" but I can use myself as an example From a total victim cursing the world for my mishaps blaming others, suffering from anxiety and panic attacks to in control of my own life, taking full responsibility just by implementing methods. But alot of interesting topics in your post and I dont think theyre wrong or without significance. I only believe we can change to becomr who ever we want to be :)
75% of the people on this earth do not have food, water and shelter on a daily basis. tomorrow 16000 kids will die from hunger.
Can you say to their faces tat they can become whatever they want to be?
75% is a BS figure and that is exactly the sort of agency that deterministic purveyors seek to avoid. Of course you go right to the children and ignore the agency of their parents or grandparents; emotional leverage is a fast way to lose a philosophical debate.
It is not. you can search U.N archives. don't have them on this hard drive though
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/americas/16000-children-under-age-of-five-die-every-day-unicef/
the planet is not a jolly place my friend
16000 children is not 75% of the population.. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. Hundreds of children, even in Europe are dying every day because of some simple error done in a hospital for a simple disease or surgery.
I will find the report tomorrow. you can google it as well. remember. food, shelter and water on a DAILY basis. it does not mean that they are starving. it means that most people in the world are unfortunate and cannot do much to change their future even if they wanted to
I'll try to be as nice as possible but I don't think you read that article, or you're simply ignoring the fact that it doesn't support your argument at all. So far, all I've seen from you is sophistry. I acknowledge the dark side of the world and my ability to brighten or darken it, that is the agency you're avoiding. You would rather say you've no choice in the matter. The bacteria in your stomach and the conversations you've had made the world terrible not your parents, not your government, and certainly not you.
you seem angry
Probably not. There are limitations. A person dying from cancer can't just change that let alone a kid starving to death. Such is life. Not fair. Btw, I'm not sure where you get your numbers from? About 10% of the world population are undernourished according to worldhunger.org.
hence no free will
So a person who grew up in a trailer park with alcoholic parents have no free will, and are destined to become a broke person living in a trailer? Sorry. People evolve and change and make their own life amazing, despite where they come from. I'm sure there are thousands of kids growing up poor in some far away land that will come to Europe and America and become rich. Nothing is determined. Sure, the ODDS are lower for a lot of people. That's how the world works. But nothing is impossible. And like @adhoctoth said, kids dont grow up in vacuum. They are born by their parents who made their choices. How else can you explain stories of people fleeing from poverty or war, and end up rich and successful? Or do you argue that that never happens? Once you're poor, you can never get out of that? C'mon.
Great comments mate! I actually made a video about this very subject the other month and I shared it on my blog today. Check it out! :]
Interesting read to say the least. Your point on running away from gunmen strategically placed around the city is one I don't follow at all.
Surely I have a choice to avoid the gunmen and go in a predetermined path OR do nothing and choose to be shot and killed?
The way you put it makes it sound like wanting to stay alive is a given. My path being affected by the positioning of the gunmen is only predetermined IF I chose to at least try and stay alive.
I mean that their presence will affect every future decision you will ever make.
Yes but I would be only going along with the pre determined path if I use my free will to decide that I want to live rather than get shot and die.
It's analogous to this example,
To go on living I should eat. That does not mean that I ought to eat.
Only if I use my free will to decide that I want to continue living will my actions change and follow a set path of eating routinely. (I path that I choose to follow!)
Your future path changed since you took any decision. it was influenced by others. your will to survive even depends on the perception of your culture and DNA to preserve yourself
Man, determinism can be pretty dangerous. Why sentence people to life in prison if they had no control over their actions?
irrelevant to whether free will exists.
Although I can see your side, preaching an opinion and letting the "ego" rule in philosophy isn't true philosophy. Do you have an argument for free will as well?
The assumption that free will exists is de-facto false. No evidence that such thing can exist in a cosmos whether everything is interconnected.
Why is everything interconnected? I assume you also mean "everything influences everything else"? I'm not sure that is a proven thing; models that point this out are just that: models.
Yeap. Everything influences everything else. Humans are social animals. It is physically impossible to be otherwise.
Sam Harris explains it rather eloquently.
It's the "everything" I don't believe in. Also, influences aren't instantaneous, and may not arrive where I am in my lifetime.
I see this as a flaw in his reasoning: even when my brain and knowledge is the product of past events that were not under my control, that doesn't imply I cannot use my brain, as the thing it has become through said influences, in a free way. How a machine has come to be does not necessarily predetermines its use and outputs. Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.
The sun does influence our moods for example. Check how in Scandinavia there are greater occurrences of depression due to lack of vitamin D. the food we eat also affects us. the people we talk, childhood trauma. Everything really at least on our closed environment does affect us.
Nobody said that you can't use your brain. We are simply saying that our thoughts and actions are not really ours.
nobody said that it predetermines its "exact" output. We are simply saying that the output is not of the computer but of the user. Humans input info to each other so nobody turns out to be a "pure" author..hence no free will.
You only need to be a partial author of your outputs to have shown free will. A machine that can create its own algorithms will be influenced by many inputs from the past, but can still add a layer of independent thinking and so decide what to do or say, no matter what influenced this machine previously. Hence free will *-).
if we could travel faster than the speed of light, then free will can't exist! check this post it's very interesting and has to do with your topic about free will https://www.quora.com/Will-humans-ever-develop-faster-than-light-travel
actually i argued in an earlier post that we do travel faster than light on this planet based on the rate of the expansion of the universe :)
i think we don't... how can you argue on this planet? it's relative as einstein told us.. so because the universe is expanding at the speed of light and you move 5km/h on earth, this doen't mean u travel faster than light...
it is true but there is another experiment you can do. When you look at the horizon, eg the sun setting or rising you are looking into the past. the rate of acceleration from your perception is different even though the sun is just sitting there.
It is indeed indisputable that one's consciousness is affected by the physical factors (hormones, sensory information, etc.) but I find it's a bit of a jump to go from that to the conclusion that the universe is entirely materialistic and that we are merely cogs in a machine set in motion with the big bang.
Do you have any evidence for the contrary?
I would argue that the existence of self-aware consciousness itself stands as the strongest evidence against determinism, as well as the relatively new knowledge that the universe does not in fact operate on a purely mechanical fashion but instead operates on the principles of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
all life has it to some extent in order to be preserve alive.
This article Is a deception It's very obvious we have free will, we can choose whatever we want to do, whenever we want to. Anyone who believes we don't have free will Is not using their common sense.
Great post
I do believe there is a higher power in the world that is using the perception of free will to somewhat control the mass population incorporated into a broader picture of how they want the world to be, spooky stuff to think about.
http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-with-religion/free-will-illusion-control.html
Another great article that goes into greater detail about the perception of free will, I highly recommend reading it!
"(with each carefully placed in different places across the city) our free-will will be influenced. Our running path would be different than the one we would have originally planned. Even if after we would have escaped, we would end end up in a specific place that was not our intention."
Your whole narrative is false. You simply assume your argument, which is demonstrably false.
If I am fleeing a crime, I can choose to avoid a cop with a gun, and avoid being arrested, or I can choose to not avoid him and risk being arrested.
This is free will. That is what CHOOSE means. Your own example proved there was an option that had to be chosen. Your own silly example proved your argument to be ludicrous. You just assume that because it wouldn't be wise to run to the cop and get arrested, and that you wouldn't, that you have no free will. Except, people make choices like that every day.
Your logic is truly nonexistent. It requires that all humans make only game theory correct decisions at all times. It's patently false. It has no basis in reality.
It is an illustrative parallelism. It cannot be false.
The cop though would have influenced your later path in life either way. Your free will would have been altered.
Again, read what I said above. Your current choice to avoid the cop could have been influenced from your belief against authority.
never said that.
I always believe that we have free will but not 100%
Our choice is determined by the option available to us.
Like weather or not I want to eat pancake or cereal for breakfast.
Yeah sure I can chose which one I want but I still chose to eat the things that I have that morning.
What if you saw a commercial that influenced you subconsciously in your decision? How "Free" was your will then?
Interesting. I agree that within the material energy there is no free will. One action brings a reaction which is also an action which brings another reaction and so on in a chain of events. This can be studied and documented. Tested and proven. No free will there.
On the level of consciousness there is however free will. I "can choose" how I see myself and the world. I can choose to act or react according to my conscious decision.
The trick is to be conscious.
there is no such thing as consciousness. heck. there is no single definition for it.
Very interesting post @kyriacos! It really made me reflect! Free will might not exist, but I hope that at least my actions on steemit mean something and people end up upvoting me! :p
meaning can exist without free will :)
Freewill and Destiny are like Nature and Nurture.
Great post I followed you!
I think this is an interesting conversation, and can be somewhat tricky.
I've lived in the paradigm that "there is no free will" and in the paradigm that "I have control over all of my actions".
I think the answer lies in the paradox.
The "there is no free will" paradigm is used to shirk responsibility for how someone's actions are affecting one's life and the lives around them.
The "I have control over all of my actions" is used to avoid the natural humanness that you speak to in your article.
Both are delusional as they are the same belief of personal victimhood but on a different side of the coin.
We don't have as much control as we'd like to believe, as we're influenced by so many factors as you mentioned - the "hot coffee" events that are responded to throughout the day. Our unconscious or subconscious actions are influenced by our ancestral DNA and conditioning, environmental factors, fear-based manipulation, etc.
The beautiful thing though about the human race is that we may not have "free will" - we have freedom of choice.
We're able to transmute our unconscious and subconscious behaviors into conscious ones and make different choices based on the feedback that reality is giving us.
That in itself requires responsibility over our choices.
Without taking personal responsibility, and at the same time without surrendering to our lack of free will, we can't begin to influence reality in a positive direction that's beneficial for all of mankind.
Living in that paradox in my opinion is absolutely crucial to living an empowered and positive life.
if all actions are predetermined by previous events how can you be sure that your choices are even yours?
What do you mean?
Interesting topic, controversial opinions.
The good lord proclaims us free will so in my humble opinion yes.
I disagree! Free will does exist, but it is a struggle to maintain...
Psychology and biology can be used to predict certain things and it is likely to happen. Not a certainty.
So how can you be certain you have free will?
Quite sure...
If I did not, I would probably never had this hunger for knowledge because most people do not.I believe that, at least, is a choice I made myself. I rather believe that life is endlessly complex and the interconnectivity is what causes the sense of losing control. 7 billion individuals mean that at least some will influence you, but the level of influence is your choice.
your statement negates itself.
everything is co-dependent
Nice