 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do we have free will? |
| No, our fates are impersonally controlled |
|
23% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, our fates are controlled by a personal force |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, we are free to choose |
|
58% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: Do we have free will? |
 |
|
Do human beings have free will? Are we merely little ants to be swept away by the impersonal hand of fate? Is our destiny very personal? Or are we free to decide what will and will not happen according to our own ability to choose? If we don't have free will, then can we be held responsible for our actions?
My response to this question is that we don't have free will but can still be held responsible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Centurio Caesareae
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 11615
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about that we are free to choose, but that our choices are on the timeline.
_________________
Ego non sum parvus psittacus!
Es neesmu mazs papagailis!
Yo no soy un periquito! |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7641
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Curiously, I had some of what could be considered free will or part of it, I had two cd albums to choose to listen, a soundtrack cd or an electronic music cd, well I have chosen the soundtrack for now. Now some could argue that was free will, because I did that on my own, now, the term does apply here, but first, we need to come up with a definition of free will, what really is? and what are the cases the term is used, and how is its validity? or does it have different definitions, depending on the situation and field?
I could say that that would be free will, but as our choices are written in the timeline, was that really destined to be, because we cannot change it? if we tape our choices, we seem to not being able to change what is about to happen, then it will rise the question of it really was free will or an illusion or something else? as it could be seen to someone that that was destined to be, because it is already written.
Can quantum physics explain free will?
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | How about that we are free to choose, but that our choices are on the timeline. |
Umm..... the issue with that is logical fatalism. If it is going to happen, then an individual cannot choose otherwise. From a theological perspective, which I think you have, if we have a creator who creates this timeline, then the conclusion that he ordained all acts is hard, if not impossible to avoid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: |
Can quantum physics explain free will? |
I think some argue it could, others would argue that it would still be a physical process and not do so very much, and some argue that brain functioning is so macro in terms of the physics used that neurons fall under classical physics and thus are deterministic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7393
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | How about that we are free to choose, but that our choices are on the timeline. |
Umm..... the issue with that is logical fatalism. If it is going to happen, then an individual cannot choose otherwise. |
That's a common fallacy.
That something is going to happen does not necessarily mean that it is going to happen on its own.
It may be going to happen because the person chose / will choose (depending on your perspective) it to happen. That person making that choice in the present, for instance, would be altering the future with that choice, even though the choice was freely made.
The fallacy comes in when people, when philosophizing about free will, visualize the future as being concrete (which it is once it's happened, but not before), then think, "See? I HAVE to make that choice!"
But they are merely confusing cause with effect. The actions in the present and past are the causes, and their outcomes in the future are the effects -- no matter from what confusing angle they are viewed. I explained this in great detail about a year ago on the PPR area, but we're free to go through it again.
The fallacy is one of human perspective. Free will is counterintuitive when you view the timeline backwards, from its conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Centurio Caesareae
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 11615
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | How about that we are free to choose, but that our choices are on the timeline. |
Umm..... the issue with that is logical fatalism. If it is going to happen, then an individual cannot choose otherwise. From a theological perspective, which I think you have, if we have a creator who creates this timeline, then the conclusion that he ordained all acts is hard, if not impossible to avoid. |
Creates the timeline? NO. Created the universe and knows the timeline, yes.
_________________
Ego non sum parvus psittacus!
Es neesmu mazs papagailis!
Yo no soy un periquito! |
|
| Back to top |
|
greenblue
¸.·´´¯`··.¸.·´
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 7641
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | The fallacy comes in when people, when philosophizing about free will, visualize the future as being concrete (which it is once it's happened, but not before), then think, "See? I HAVE to make that choice!"
But they are merely confusing cause with effect. The actions in the present and past are the causes, and their outcomes in the future are the effects -- no matter from what confusing angle they are viewed. I explained this in great detail about a year ago on the PPR area, but we're free to go through it again.
The fallacy is one of human perspective. Free will is counterintuitive when you view the timeline backwards, from its conclusion. |
if I interpret correctly your position, that would be my position as well, kinda, that is being a matter of cause and effect, as you said, looking at the timeline backwards, then some may come to the conclusion of free will being an illusion, but from this point forward there is no future, there is nothing written and it is just a matter of probability in my view, until the effect takes place from the cause, whatever it was.
My position is that of the Chaos theory, which it seems to make room for free will, although that could be debated I think.
_________________
We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake. -Erich Fromm
Last edited by greenblue on Thu May 22, 2008 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 2271
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How about both yes and no? The universe is a big swirl ... sometimes we can see the wave building and move out of the way (should we choose). Other times, the wave is a juggernaut that is going to hit us and sweep us away, no matter what we will into action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
That's a common fallacy.
That something is going to happen does not necessarily mean that it is going to happen on its own.
It may be going to happen because the person chose / will choose (depending on your perspective) it to happen. That person making that choice in the present, for instance, would be altering the future with that choice, even though the choice was freely made. |
Not a fallacy at all, that is actually a philosophical argument on this matter. If somebody WILL choose something, then there is no room for them to choose otherwise. The fact of the matter is that if all choices could be known from a past date, then the future could be known from the past, and thus the notion "changing the future" would be false as if S is true about the future, then nothing can change S.
| Quote: |
The fallacy comes in when people, when philosophizing about free will, visualize the future as being concrete (which it is once it's happened, but not before), then think, "See? I HAVE to make that choice!" |
Well, the future IS concrete if all facts can be known about it. If S is a certain set comprising all data about the future, and S is true, then nothing can make S false, and then the future is closed. Really though, some people don't even hold to that view of the future anyway, as what you are presenting is a type A view of the future, as opposed to the type B view which says that both future and past are closed, and the latter is both a valid position, and some would even argue a more valid position.
| Quote: | | But they are merely confusing cause with effect. The actions in the present and past are the causes, and their outcomes in the future are the effects -- no matter from what confusing angle they are viewed. I explained this in great detail about a year ago on the PPR area, but we're free to go through it again. |
This isn't a confusion at all, and frankly, I am not likely going to look through all of these old posts to find your specific post. I either read it and dismissed it, or it is in a thread where I would not know where to look, or I argued with you already on this.
| Quote: | | The fallacy is one of human perspective. Free will is counterintuitive when you view the timeline backwards, from its conclusion. |
Nope, not a fallacy at all. Valid logical argument. Had a friend who saw this argument presented in logical terms by a TA in his philosophy class and the prof could not refute it.
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | iamnotaparakeet wrote: | | How about that we are free to choose, but that our choices are on the timeline. |
Umm..... the issue with that is logical fatalism. If it is going to happen, then an individual cannot choose otherwise. From a theological perspective, which I think you have, if we have a creator who creates this timeline, then the conclusion that he ordained all acts is hard, if not impossible to avoid. |
Creates the timeline? NO. Created the universe and knows the timeline, yes. |
There is no difference though. If he created the universe, and the timeline flows causally or effectively causally from creation, then he essentially created the timeline too. If he knows the results of the timeline, which is a result of his creating the universe, then essentially he caused the timeline to come about, and thus created it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3148
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Do we have free will? |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | My response to this question is that we don't have free will but can still be held responsible. |
That's mine too.
But I don't know which is the right answer ( representing this) on the poll!    So haven't voted for now.
_________________
"Life is pain; anyone who says different is selling something" |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenblue wrote: |
My position is that of the Chaos theory, which it seems to make room for free will, although that could be debated I think. |
I am not sure that Chaos theory really does that, as it is actually deterministic and is just a form of math where describing situations where small changes can cause big effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Centurio Caesareae
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 11615
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's say we roll a pair of six-sided dice? We can know that you'll never get 1 because you use two dice and the minimum number is 2. It can't be 13 because the maximum number is 12. You have a range of 2 to 12 of natural numbers.
Tell me what the sum is of each roll. If you record it and memorize it, you will know what it was. But can you know, or rather is it determined, what each roll is?
For God, He knows the end from the beginning, but that is like watching the record. Sure He may interfere occasionally, but He doesn't force us to commit sin against Him.
_________________
Ego non sum parvus psittacus!
Es neesmu mazs papagailis!
Yo no soy un periquito!
Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on Thu May 22, 2008 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Do we have free will? |
|
|
| ouinon wrote: | | Awesomelyglorious wrote: | | My response to this question is that we don't have free will but can still be held responsible. |
That's mine too.
But I don't know which is the right answer ( representing this) on the poll! So haven't voted for now.
|
Oh, sorry, I divided the poll up on whether or not you believe in free will, and whether or not you believe in personal forces involved in determinism. I should have included issues of justice, but I didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iamnotaparakeet wrote: | Let's say we roll a pair of six-sided dice? We can know that you'll never get 1 because you use two dice and the minimum number is 2. It can't be 13 because the maximum number is 12. You have a range of 2 to 12 of natural numbers.
Tell me what the sum is of each roll. If you record it and memorize it, you will know what it was. But can you know, or rather is it determined, what each roll is?
For God, He knows the end from the beginning, but that is like watching the record. Sure He may interfere occasionally, but he doesn't force us to commit sin against Him. |
I really do not follow this argument. To start off, even though dice are that simple, physical realities are complex to the point where small variations can lead to radically different results, as noted by chaos theory. Not only that, but if there are records, then there is a past, which means that the future is set, like the past, which is partially what you are arguing against.... so, I really just don't follow how this is meant to be a rebuttal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
