A challenge to free will

YouTube

I didn't watch the vid because my speakers are out. But, it's something I've thought about before. I'm not exactly sure that we do have free will. Just a clever illusion.

For example. Let's take the future. Let's presume that the future isn't decided yet, and therfore, logically speaking, every door is open. Every possibility for you exists but it hasn't happened yet. As soon as you make a choice, you set the ball rolling down a specific path of circumstances.

But your choice, in turn, is given all of its weight and merit by circumstances beforehand. The person you are today, the way you think, your morals, how you were raised, and everything else, determines how you will act.

So, while all the doors are always open to you, you're always going to travel down a set path because of who you are, which was predetermined by circumstances beyond your control. No matter what you choose, it's because of actions and experiences that push you a certain way, and while you think you always have the other option, you're always going to pick the path ahead of you that suits you best.

I assum of course, that the video was adocating against free will, rather than for it.

If it was, just ignore me.

I just realized this was a pun:

I just realized this was a pun:

Gay. Wish my speakers weren't out. Apparently I'm missing some quaility content here.

I just realized this was a pun:

Gay. Wish my speakers weren't out. Apparently I'm missing some quaility content here.

It's not from the video, it's just the title of the movie. The kid chose to free the whale despite the consequences by reasoning through the morality of his actions. And stuff like that.

OT:

The answer is in the question; the one without free will is the one that has been programmed to nearly-perfectly simulate the reactions of someone with free will. The difference is that the one with free will has greater moral accountability for his or her actions, whereas the accountability of the non-free-agent lies partially in that person and partially in whoever designed that program. There's no 'free will' center of the brain, so if we're talking about a person who for some reason is intellectually handicapped, or maybe ethically and intellectually immature (like a child), then their responsibility for their actions is unquantifiably lessened.

Free will isn't contingent upon one's ability to distinguish it. Kind of like the question of uncertainty versus randomness, the latter necessitates an ability to quantify something but often the lack of robust techniques to do so. So the inability to identify an empirical basis for free will doesn't really invalidate someone's culpability for their actions. And of course there's quite a degree of determinism in life, and we're all not perfectly free but rather bound to a relatively strict set of decisions that we make subconsciously as a result of the sum of our experiences, genes, and environmental stimuli. Is 'free will' largely an unempirical, unquantifiable subject that is often meaningless in context? Absolutely.

The difference is that the one with free will has greater moral accountability for his or her actions,

Surely that's an unacceptable answer, since "moral accountability" is pretty much as intangible as the idea of free will in the first place. Presuming the existence of moral accountability tells us nothing.

Free will isn't contingent upon one's ability to distinguish it.

Our ability to make propositions about it is.

rather bound to a relatively strict set of decisions that we make subconsciously as a result of the sum of our experiences, genes, and environmental stimuli.

To which I'd argue free will therefore doesn't exist.

To which I'd argue free will therefore doesn't exist.

Well you're certainly free to do so.

Well you're certainly free to do so.

LOOK AT THIS CHEEKY CUNT

I'd say Free Will exists, but not absolute Free Will. Like Turkey said, we don't choose where and when we are born, or all the details of our existence. We go with what we've got. But we are free to do so, with that we've got.

Couldn't you just ask them to do something repugnant?

I.e. "eat shit". The one with no free will would assumedly follow the order without question. The one with free will would ask why, try and worm out of it or outright refuse.

Couldn't you just ask them to do something repugnant?

I.e. "eat shit". The one with no free will would assumedly follow the order without question. The one with free will would ask why, try and worm out of it or outright refuse.

Well, no, because the one without free will is programmed to act as if it does have free will.

Couldn't you just ask them to do something repugnant?

I.e. "eat shit". The one with no free will would assumedly follow the order without question. The one with free will would ask why, try and worm out of it or outright refuse.

Well, no, because the one without free will is programmed to act as if it does have free will.

Doesn't that defeat the point?

How can this scenario exist if the thing we are trying to differentiate doesn't have a solid definition, and is hypothetically mimicable?

How can this scenario exist if the thing we are trying to differentiate doesn't have a solid definition, and is hypothetically mimicable?

The point of the thought experiment is to show that you cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of free will.

I didn't watch the vid because my speakers are out. But, it's something I've thought about before. I'm not exactly sure that we do have free will. Just a clever illusion.

For example. Let's take the future. Let's presume that the future isn't decided yet, and therfore, logically speaking, every door is open. Every possibility for you exists but it hasn't happened yet. As soon as you make a choice, you set the ball rolling down a specific path of circumstances.

But your choice, in turn, is given all of its weight and merit by circumstances beforehand. The person you are today, the way you think, your morals, how you were raised, and everything else, determines how you will act.

So, while all the doors are always open to you, you're always going to travel down a set path because of who you are, which was predetermined by circumstances beyond your control. No matter what you choose, it's because of actions and experiences that push you a certain way, and while you think you always have the other option, you're always going to pick the path ahead of you that suits you best.

I assum of course, that the video was adocating against free will, rather than for it.

If it was, just ignore me.

This is exactly how I've always thought about the problem. I definitely haven't done my research on this topic in a long-ass time, because I lost interest in metaphysics and such, but I could never justify the belief in completely boundless free will. What fundamentally allows decisions to be made are the product of influences that exist outside of the very thing making those choices- your brain.

How can this scenario exist if the thing we are trying to differentiate doesn't have a solid definition, and is hypothetically mimicable?

The point of the thought experiment is to show that you cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of free will.

But with a rigged hypothetical scenario, yeah.

But with a rigged hypothetical scenario, yeah.

How is it rigged? The entire scenario revolves around coming up with some method of empirically determining the existence of free will. There are no unnecessary roadblocks to that in the thought experiment.

But with a rigged hypothetical scenario, yeah.

How is it rigged? The entire scenario revolves around coming up with some method of empirically determining the existence of free will. There are no unnecessary roadblocks to that in the thought experiment.

Because the test already assumes that free will is identical to non-free will. If the person without free-will can perfectly mimic free will, that's not mimicking, that is free will and pretending not to have it...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really bought on total free will myself, but this thought experiment isn't a fair one.

If the person without free-will can perfectly mimic free will

They can't mimic it 100pc, the point is that you cannot tell just by looking at them and you have to come up with some method of empirically distinguishing the two.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Free Will

You don't have to capitalize free will.

It won't send you to live in fire and agony if you write it normally.

Since it's a concept, I figured I would do that. But yeah it doesn't matter if I do that

Economics is a pseudoscience.


See I chose to say that.

When you hit a baseball into a window, it's gonna break.

I mean, come on--it's not difficult to contrive that all events in the universe are merely the result of a long, unending series of complex chain reactions and cause-and-effect relationships based on the laws of motion.

You don't think. Your brain thinks. There's no such thing as "you" or "I"--we're just brains. When we say things like, "I think," we should instead be obligated to say "my brain thinks", because that would be a more accurate statement. Your brain thinks as a result of being affected by a particular type of stimulus, and that's all that's happening.

*shameless plug for Douglas Hogstadter's book The Mind's I*

The idea if freewill is ill defined at best. Asking whether it exists or not is basically asking whether you can take the square root of a piece of toast.