Free Will, especially as it applies to writing

AW Admin · Jan 12, 2017

MisterV said:
Due to my free will, I don't particularly care about that. Instead of discussing what my definitions are or are not, try to present your own.

1. Maybe, maybe not. Why do you say that? Am I not excising free will to purchase something? Have I not made a decision? Have I made an effort to obtain money to then obtain said product? If I have not made effort to obtain money I have not exercised free will to obtain said product. When I exercise my free will in this manner, I assume a capitalistic society with adequate freedom to perform these actions, such as America.

2. I would say I agree with that. Being banned is outside my control. I'm free to yell "FIRE" on an airplane and getting jetted out (haha) at 5000'. Or should we separate the concepts of free will and freedom of action? They seem quite interconnected, however, to me.

3. See above...

4. Maybe a lot, maybe nothing. Like I said before, I try not to pigeon hole philosophical discourse.

You know what? You're a troll. Go away.

AW Admin · Jan 12, 2017

If the rest of you want to have an honest conversation about free will, by all means do.

Silva · Jan 12, 2017

Does Free Will mean something different in a secular/philosophical context different than it does in a theological context?

I'm more familiar with the theological context and must confess that I don't see much relevancy to secular thought, especially given how complex we now understand the human brain to be re. the decision making process and unconscious biases and assumptions, as well as how the brain can be affected by environment and genetics, etc.

I wonder if recent strides in science hasn't made it an outdated framework for trying to figure out reality.

R.T James · Jan 12, 2017

AW Admin said:
You know what? You're a troll. Go away.

I feel saying my own opinion here might result in smiting.

The notion of intellectual debate, or thought being hypothetically brought up is the worse way to troll. Trolling is about enraging the other party until they see red, a topic about free will does not exhibit the classics of trolling. Provoking thought into a subject is less likely to make them succumb to aspect desired of trolling. Honestly trolling is more in tune with politics than it is free will.

An individuals free will, or a characters free will are abstract thoughts. You can shape, mould and form a person into doing many things; just as a dog can be trained. Upbringing, culture, and society can affect an individuals free will or even then notions of it. In 1984 it is made apparent that sure notion of having free will is a crime. A crime against Big Brother, and everything else in that society.

Free will, as I see it, is the individuals spectrum of which they can and can not act. Theoretically any human has the capacity to pick up a .45 cal 1911 off of a rusted table and put a round into another person's frontal lobe. However, most people would not be able to comprehend the notion let alone act upon on it. Morality affects your free will, it defines the spectrum of which you can and can not act.

You are free to theoretically do what ever you want, but you, your mind, your brain, your neighbour, and your local government says otherwise. You hold yourself back as much as the government does, or any other oppressive body. Every thing that can be pointed at being fundamental in a person's road to the present can be viewed as affecting everything they can and can not do.

Everybody has the utopia definition of free will theoretically; however, realistically the definition falls flat on its face.

People are social creatures who normal function best in packs. However, this herd mentality can be seen and even reacted upon to control them. "No!" you cry out. "I am an individual. I have rights I have thoughts, and I say I am unique!" In your head yes, but in a situation where you are in a group, which you are now even if you don't consciously recognize it.

Take for example an horrific event. A terrorist attack , or any other act that could have an insurance company deny your claim under the clause 'Act of god'. These events happen and people are constantly controlled and shepherded by them. You might declare NO! But think about it slowly. Somebody bad happens, people are panicked, knee jerk actions occur, and suddenly the herd is shoved into a cage. Your free will was instantly changed by fear, the aspect of death, and in 9 times out of 10 the government.

The media which you intake, the people you hang out with, the thoughts you speak affect the spectrum of actions I debate is free will.

Signed,

The long winded,

Mr. James.

mccardey · Jan 12, 2017

R.T.James said:
I feel saying my own opinion here might result in smiting.

Not smiting, but -

AW Admin said:
free will

n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

It is primarily the second part of the definition that drives the philosophical concept; that is the question of the divine influence and destiny, or the concept of individual's choosing their actions, and thereby driving their own destiny.

- I'm just going to leave this here, because it's impossible to dissect a concept without first accepting a definition to inform the basis of the discussion. And this seems like a good definition.

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 12, 2017

King Neptune said:
Fine, you agree that the universe is determined; although you may prefer to call it something different.

I don't see how that follows from what I said.

I was saying that probabilistic is neither deterministic nor willed, that the dichotomy itself is false.

cornflake · Jan 12, 2017

Silva said:
Does Free Will mean something different in a secular/philosophical context different than it does in a theological context?

I'm more familiar with the theological context and must confess that I don't see much relevancy to secular thought, especially given how complex we now understand the human brain to be re. the decision making process and unconscious biases and assumptions, as well as how the brain can be affected by environment and genetics, etc.

I wonder if recent strides in science hasn't made it an outdated framework for trying to figure out reality.

That's how I think of free will. One of the links in the OP was talking about the propensity of previous events and decisions to have impact upon decision-making following, but that, to me, isn't really about free will, but of personal decision-making or whatever.

R.T James said:
I feel saying my own opinion here might result in smiting.

The notion of intellectual debate, or thought being hypothetically brought up is the worse way to troll. Trolling is about enraging the other party until they see red, a topic about free will does not exhibit the classics of trolling. Provoking thought into a subject is less likely to make them succumb to aspect desired of trolling. Honestly trolling is more in tune with politics than it is free will.

Dude. Welcome to the Internet; people can and do troll about anything and everything.

An individuals free will, or a characters free will are abstract thoughts. You can shape, mould and form a person into doing many things; just as a dog can be trained. Upbringing, culture, and society can affect an individuals free will or even then notions of it. In 1984 it is made apparent that sure notion of having free will is a crime. A crime against Big Brother, and everything else in that society.

Or you can't. It's not as if the scientific world has settled on nurture.

Free will, as I see it, is the individuals spectrum of which they can and can not act. Theoretically any human has the capacity to pick up a .45 cal 1911 off of a rusted table and put a round into another person's frontal lobe. However, most people would not be able to comprehend the notion let alone act upon on it. Morality affects your free will, it defines the spectrum of which you can and can not act.

Mileage varies again, because I think most, if not all, people can not only comprehend it, but would act upon it, depending on circumstance. Morality doesn't affect free will -- deciding not to shoot people would be your free will.

You are free to theoretically do what ever you want, but you, your mind, your brain, your neighbour, and your local government says otherwise. You hold yourself back as much as the government does, or any other oppressive body. Every thing that can be pointed at being fundamental in a person's road to the present can be viewed as affecting everything they can and can not do.

Everybody has the utopia definition of free will theoretically; however, realistically the definition falls flat on its face.

Wait, who are the we who can do things outside of our minds and brains? My hand doesn't act of its own accord to pick up a gun and shoot it. Also, no, people hold themselves back as they choose, for their own reasons.

People are social creatures who normal function best in packs. However, this herd mentality can be seen and even reacted upon to control them. "No!" you cry out. "I am an individual. I have rights I have thoughts, and I say I am unique!" In your head yes, but in a situation where you are in a group, which you are now even if you don't consciously recognize it.

You've got so much smushed together here I don't know where to start; maybe with the assumption that people you're talking to have never heard of groupthink, or mob mentality,? Also, the things you list: individual... have rights... have thoughts... am unique? Those are not the same thing; they're vastly different ideas. Also, don't speak for other people.

Take for example an horrific event. A terrorist attack , or any other act that could have an insurance company deny your claim under the clause 'Act of god'. These events happen and people are constantly controlled and shepherded by them. You might declare NO! But think about it slowly. Somebody bad happens, people are panicked, knee jerk actions occur, and suddenly the herd is shoved into a cage. Your free will was instantly changed by fear, the aspect of death, and in 9 times out of 10 the government.

Think about it slowly? You really need to reconsider your apparent view that you're talking to moronic children. That said, though I don't really get the point you're even attempting to make with this graph, no, free will is not affected by internment? Your freedom of movement may be, but you still possess free will, if one believes in free will.

The media which you intake, the people you hang out with, the thoughts you speak affect the spectrum of actions I debate is free will.

Signed,

The long winded,

Mr. James.

How are those things free will? Would you care to define in it some way that's more... definition-based?

R.T James · Jan 13, 2017

mccardey said:
Not smiting, but -

- I'm just going to leave this here, because it's impossible to dissect a concept without first accepting a definition to inform the basis of the discussion. And this seems like a good definition.

Thank you for posting up the Uptopia defintion of free will I mentioned in my post.

You see if we didn't question definitions or what is proclaimed as true we would all still believe the world revolves the sun and that cats are the devil's creatures. Science wouldn't advance and doctors would be still treating female hysteria. Without questioning there would be no advancement.

The thing is the definition you replied with looks great on paper. Just like how communism looks amazing on paper, but in practice it falls flat on its face. Take a look at the Poland controlled by the USSR if you want proof of that theory. So as the paper definition works a treat, it doesn't hold up to actually how the world is.

Because by the uptopia definition we do not have free will.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

The first one simply states making a choice is free will. The second one states the power of making a choice that is neither caused by natural causility, predestined by fates or divine will.

So if it affects your life and your insurance won't cover it. Then you can rule it out first off!

The first one says making a free choice, but that is impossible. Your choices aren't entirely made by you. You are a creation of everything you have experienced, you are shaped, you are created. Your mind is influenced on a regular basis by predetermined biases of your upbringing. This is why when you dig down deep into it you can train yourself to do things, root things into your subconcious, or more realistically others can train you. Your free will is only as free as you precieve it to be. Your scope of actions are limited by what you truly know you can do.

Free will is choice without influence.

But how can you make a choice without influence if you are influenced by everything including yourself?

That means then there is no choice without influence.

So animals do not even have free will since their choices are influenced.

So that means the only things in the world that truly have free will are trees and plants. Because they make no choices and very little influences them, the only thing that holds them down is the sun who gives them energy and the ground that gives them nutrients.

Our choices are normally reactions and reactions imply influence. A free will implies we make choices without reactions nor influence. So here I stand here stating that there is no such thing as free will by its defintion as generally accepted.

Signed,

Mr. James

mccardey · Jan 13, 2017

R.T James said:
Thank you for posting up the Uptopia defintion of free will I mentioned in my post.

You see if we didn't question definitions or what is proclaimed as true we would all still believe the world revolves the sun and that cats are the devil's creatures. Science wouldn't advance and doctors would be still treating female hysteria. Without questioning there would be no advancement.

The thing is the definition you replied with looks great on paper. Just like how communism looks amazing on paper, but in practice it falls flat on its face. Take a look at the Poland controlled by the USSR if you want proof of that theory. So as the paper definition works a treat, it doesn't hold up to actually how the world is.

Because by the uptopia definition we do not have free will.

The first one simply states making a choice is free will. The second one states the power of making a choice that is neither caused by natural causility, predestined by fates or divine will.

So if it affects your life and your insurance won't cover it. Then you can rule it out first off!

The first one says making a free choice, but that is impossible. Your choices aren't entirely made by you. You are a creation of everything you have experienced, you are shaped, you are created. Your mind is influenced on a regular basis by predetermined biases of your upbringing. This is why when you dig down deep into it you can train yourself to do things, root things into your subconcious, or more realistically others can train you. Your free will is only as free as you precieve it to be. Your scope of actions are limited by what you truly know you can do.

Free will is choice without influence.

But how can you make a choice without influence if you are influenced by everything including yourself?

That means then there is no choice without influence.

So animals do not even have free will since their choices are influenced.

So that means the only things in the world that truly have free will are trees and plants. Because they make no choices and very little influences them, the only thing that holds them down is the sun who gives them energy and the ground that gives them nutrients.

Our choices are normally reactions and reactions imply influence. A free will implies we make choices without reactions nor influence. So here I stand here stating that there is no such thing as free will by its defintion as generally accepted.

Signed,

Mr. James

No, we're talking at cross-purposes now because you're positing a definition of free will that is not, in fact, a definition of free will. It's as though I was giving you the recipe for ice-cream and you were responding that it wouldn't work because your version of ice-cream was made with tomatoes and basil on a beef stock and was served hot. There's no way to have a meaningful discussion if I'm talking about ice-cream and you're saying that tomato soup is the same as ice cream and it's your role and right to point that out. I mean - you can do that, but ice-cream is ice-cream.

(Forgive the ice-cream fixation, everyone. It's nudging 100 degrees here again tonight and not likely to cool. And hotter temps predicted for tomorrow.)

mccardey out.

cornflake · Jan 13, 2017

There's mango & cream in my freezer, pup.

Trees, in fact, appear to choose. They share nutrients and rally 'round trees in trouble.

Aside from that, agreeing with the pup.

ETA: Of course things should be questioned; new definitions can be offered, discussed, debated. You're still not offering any, just saying you think what we're discussing isn't free will, because you don't think it's free will.

No paper is published without operational definitions, and no operational definition in the history of anything has been 'not anything you think because it's something else that doesn't actually exist.'

Helix · Jan 13, 2017

R.T James said:
You see if we didn't question definitions or what is proclaimed as true we would all still believe the world revolves the sun...

^I'm with these people. I firmly believe that the world revolves around the sun.

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 13, 2017

R.T James said:
Trolling is about enraging the other party until they see red...

As I understand it, trolling is about attempting to control a conversation and disrupting others' attempts to have a reasonable conversation.

Stirring up anger is only one of many trollish strategies.

King Neptune · Jan 13, 2017

Silva said:
Does Free Will mean something different in a secular/philosophical context different than it does in a theological context?

I'm more familiar with the theological context and must confess that I don't see much relevancy to secular thought, especially given how complex we now understand the human brain to be re. the decision making process and unconscious biases and assumptions, as well as how the brain can be affected by environment and genetics, etc.

I wonder if recent strides in science hasn't made it an outdated framework for trying to figure out reality.

Fundamentally no; although different terms may be used. Philosophically free will is the opposite of determinism; the power to determine one's actions, thoughts, and future independent, while determinism contends that all actions are the results of causes that preceded the actions. The religious version of the discussion inserts God(s) into the mix, but the argument is the same.

The Many Worlds Interpretation alters it a little but not fundamentally, and Quantum Theory makes it a matter of probability, rather than certainty, but that's a technicality, and it leaves cause and effect as the determiners. If you want some wiggle room, then claim Quantum variation, even though the variations probably are caused by something that was no observed.

King Neptune · Jan 13, 2017

RichardGarfinkle said:
I don't see how that follows from what I said.

I was saying that probabilistic is neither deterministic nor willed, that the dichotomy itself is false.

Are you asserting that you sort of probabilistic events simply spring into existence from nothing without cause?

Curlz · Jan 13, 2017

King Neptune said:
Are you asserting that you sort of probabilistic events simply spring into existence from nothing without cause?

Are the bubbles in my Guinness probabilistic or deterministic?

Helix said:
^I'm with these people. I firmly believe that the world revolves around the sun.

Wut? Next you'll be telling us the world is not flat either! :Lecture:

R.T James said:
The first one says making a free choice, but that is impossible. Your choices aren't entirely made by you. You are a creation of everything you have experienced, you are shaped...
Free will is choice without influence.

Free choice is not the same as free will. Americans have free choice to choose between several parties in their elections, North Koreans don't have free choice in their elections because there is only one party to select. But both Americans and North Koreans may have free will, which is about the outcome not about the availability of choice itself. The argument of the free will is not about the choice. One can have choice with or without free will. The argument about "free will" starts after the individual makes a choice, picks a selection. It's not about the availability of choice options or items to select from. You are mixing the two and confusion ensues.

The argument about the existence of free will is important for the existence of the justice system. If people don't have free will, then we can't convict anybody (whatever they did, it wasn't their fault) :Shrug:

So, that question has already been already answered :tongue

Silva said:
Does Free Will mean something different in a secular/philosophical context different than it does in a theological context?

Free will is about the moment when you make a choice. You go to a junction, there's road A and road B in front of you. You take one, A or B. If you had "free will", that means your choice was made there and then - you reached the junction, you saw the two available roads and did some thinking. That thinking led you to a conclusion and you took road A or road B as a result. What made you choose road A or road B, can vary. It can be god, upbringing, knowledge, etc, that influences your choice - whatever, it doesn't matter. You had free will and it was possible at this point to pick either. The question of "free will" is whether you made that decision there and then, on the spot, when you reached the junction.

If there is no "free will" that means your choice was already made, way back in advance, somewhere at the time when you got into the car, or maybe even before you bought the car, or even before you decided to buy a car, or even before your parents met and thought about having you. Something determined your choice way in advance and it is set in stone that whenever you reach that junction, you will always take road A. Which means that regardless of what you thought at the time when you reached the junction, regardless of all the considerations you were free to make, regardless of all the choices you are free to take, you always take one particular, predetermined for you road, road A. Whatever you thought, whatever you considered, your decision at that junction will always be road A. Because ... well, different theories have different explanations but the main thing is, you will always take road A at that junction. It was impossible for you to pick anything else (the same way it's impossible for you to exceed the speed of light in this universe).

veinglory · Jan 13, 2017

I am very much on the determinism end, determinist but for quantum uncertainty and such, but I would challenge anyone to say what difference that makes in normal day to day living. I don't think it has much impact on my life, being in this particular invisible minority.

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 13, 2017

King Neptune said:
Are you asserting that you sort of probabilistic events simply spring into existence from nothing without cause?

Depends on what you mean by cause. The vacuum of space can decay producing electron-positron pairs if the energy state is low enough. But whether such a decay will happen and when and where is purely probabilistic. The "cause" is the underlying character and processes of the universe. But all those predict is that this kind of event can happen and is more likely to happen in low energy conditions than in high energy conditions.

That doesn't sound like cause and effect in any classical or everyday meaning of the phrase to me.

Jason · Jan 13, 2017

Sounds like we have a couple different concepts being bandied about here, and I am getting thoroughly confused, yet also equally engaged. Just for clarification, as I have read thus far, there are the following "terms":

Free Will

Free choice

Determinism

Probabilistic universe

Before I could really ask any questions about any of these, I'd like to get clarification on what the context of each is. For instance, when speaking about free will, has the definition there been resolved? If so, what is our agreed upon definition? Along that same line, if we are having a conversation about free will and whether or not it exists, what are we comparing it to? Someone had mentioned that there is a dichotomy between free will and a probabilistic universe - or was it determinism and a probabilistic universe? Then someone else made some sort of explanation on the difference between free will and free choice.

Not sure what we were supposed to be discussing here anymore - is it free will? If so, then what's the definition, and what are the alternatives?

Signed,
Jason (the confused one)

King Neptune · Jan 13, 2017

CBJason said:
Sounds like we have a couple different concepts being bandied about here, and I am getting thoroughly confused, yet also equally engaged. Just for clarification, as I have read thus far, there are the following "terms":

Free Will

Free choice

Determinism

Probabilistic universe

Before I could really ask any questions about any of these, I'd like to get clarification on what the context of each is. For instance, when speaking about free will, has the definition there been resolved? If so, what is our agreed upon definition? Along that same line, if we are having a conversation about free will and whether or not it exists, what are we comparing it to? Someone had mentioned that there is a dichotomy between free will and a probabilistic universe - or was it determinism and a probabilistic universe? Then someone else made some sort of explanation on the difference between free will and free choice.

Not sure what we were supposed to be discussing here anymore - is it free will? If so, then what's the definition, and what are the alternatives?

Signed,
Jason (the confused one)

I fully understand your point here. Free will and determinism have been around for a very long time and are directly opposed ideas. I would suggest that you do a search for academic sites that explain them.ideas.

Probabilistic universe is a rather recent term that is from Quantum Theory. It isn't as straight-forward as determinism, because there are probabilities for something happening, rather than it being either there or not. But like determinism it is a somewhat mechanistic view of things.

As with many things in philosophy, there are shades of differences. My opinion is that the more data one has, the less probabilistic it looks and the more deterministic, but that's my opinion, rather than the regular definition.

veinglory · Jan 13, 2017

I agree these terms all have agreed (academic) meanings. I think we would need to narrow things down to even begin to spell them all out. But basically determinism says that every choice is 100% predictable to an observer with a comprehensive/omniscient knowledge of a person's physical state and prior experiences. That is, given their genetics and experiences and how the choice is presented a person will only every make the choice they made. If you rewind time and repeat it they will always make the same choice

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 13, 2017

veinglory said:
I agree these terms all have agreed (academic) meanings. I think we would need to narrow things down to even begin to spell them all out. But basically determinism says that every choice is 100% predictable to an observer with a comprehensive/omniscient knowledge of a person's physical state and prior experiences. That is, given their genetics and experiences and how the choice is presented a person will only every make the choice they made. If you rewind time and repeat it they will always make the same choice

This illuminates the practical problems inherent in the argument.

1. Perfect information is not only impractical, it is physically impossible to achieve (because of uncertainty).

2. Time cannot be rewound, therefore the hypothesis cannot be tested.

3. There physically cannot be an omniscient observer (relativity is the culprit this time).

The fundamental problem here is that the dichotomy is an artifcat of an idea of reality that turns out to be false.

ColoradoGuy · Jan 13, 2017

As I understand it, which is not all that well, physicists debate if the universe is fundamentally probabilistic or deterministic. Much seems to depend upon understanding the Schrödinger equation, which I really don't, but which is apparently in one sense deterministic and in another not. Here is an example of a chat among a bunch of physics folks arguing about the question, complete with discussions of collapsing wave functions, whatever they are.

Free will concerned ancient Christians a great deal, particularly Saint Augustine, the dean of them all. His On the Free Choice of the Will was primarily concerned with the problem of evil. Augustine concluded evil is the result of humans using their gift of free will from an inherently good and benevolent God to do evil. The tricky part is that God, who is by definition good, can foresee the future and thus knows this will happen. So one might say a divine gift is the cause of evil. Augustine ultimately used the conception of evil being a lack of something, a defect; it is the absence of good. As I recall he used a metaphor of distance away from a light, although it's been a few decades since I last looked at it. He was arguing against the Manichaeans at the time, who proposed two gods, a good one and an evil one, to explain the problem.

Anyway, interesting discussion. The theologically inclined might want to take a look at Augustine.

King Neptune · Jan 14, 2017

veinglory said:
I agree these terms all have agreed (academic) meanings. I think we would need to narrow things down to even begin to spell them all out. But basically determinism says that every choice is 100% predictable to an observer with a comprehensive/omniscient knowledge of a person's physical state and prior experiences. That is, given their genetics and experiences and how the choice is presented a person will only every make the choice they made. If you rewind time and repeat it they will always make the same choice

That's my view also. It makes learning more important than it might other wise be.

veinglory · Jan 14, 2017

It is not a problem at all because no one is saying it can be proven or disproven. It is like the existence of God. People have beliefs about it based on how they see the world. Proof one way or the other does not exist.

King Neptune · Jan 14, 2017

veinglory said:
It is not a problem at all because no one is saying it can be proven or disproven. It is like the existence of God. People have beliefs about it based on how they see the world. Proof one way or the other does not exist.

I largely agree with you, but it is demonstrable that cause and effect is behind everything that we can observe, and I believe that logic dictates that everything else is ruled by cause and effect. I think that puts the probability that everything is determined at a high percentage.

Free Will, especially as it applies to writing

saucy

Street urchin with a top hat.

Nurture Phoenixes

practical experience, FTW

Street urchin with a top hat.

practical experience, FTW

socially distancing

Sophipygian

cutsie-pie

volitare nequeo

Nurture Phoenixes

Ideas bounce around in my head

volitare nequeo

Nurture Phoenixes

I've seen worse.

volitare nequeo