Free Will

[Tarantism]

i have been pondering the question lately of "mind or brain?" and it brings me to the concept of free will. i was in a discussion the other night where a few buddies of mine told me that decisions made are in the end inevitable and that simply didnt make any sense.

 

really you can break down the concept of mind/free will and matter/ie. brain functions and body functions. to say that the brain controls every apect of the body, including decisions and reactions seems silly to me. the choice may be inevitable, but ultimately the human mind has the choice to itself: are there more pros/less cons to go left? or are there more pros to go right?

 

materialism is science seem to mesh. the materialists took over nearly every single catagory of scientific thought and cotinue to break it down into a series of chemical reactions of the brain or nervous system, all except the concept of mind.

 

so how bout it, mind, brain, or both?:eek2:

[EWright]

i have been pondering the question lately of "mind or brain?" and it brings me to the concept of free will. i was in a discussion the other night where a few buddies of mine told me that decisions made are in the end inevitable and that simply didnt make any sense.

 

really you can break down the concept of mind/free will and matter/ie. brain functions and body functions. to say that the brain controls every apect of the body, including decisions and reactions seems silly to me. the choice may be inevitable, but ultimately the human mind has the choice to itself: are there more pros/less cons to go left? or are there more pros to go right?

 

materialism is science seem to mesh. the materialists took over nearly every single catagory of scientific thought and cotinue to break it down into a series of chemical reactions of the brain or nervous system, all except the concept of mind.

 

so how bout it, mind, brain, or both?:)

 

Depends on which head we're talking about here, no? :eek2:

[Drip Curl Magic]

i have been pondering the question lately of "mind or brain?" and it brings me to the concept of free will. i was in a discussion the other night where a few buddies of mine told me that decisions made are in the end inevitable and that simply didnt make any sense.

 

really you can break down the concept of mind/free will and matter/ie. brain functions and body functions. to say that the brain controls every apect of the body, including decisions and reactions seems silly to me. the choice may be inevitable, but ultimately the human mind has the choice to itself: are there more pros/less cons to go left? or are there more pros to go right?

 

materialism is science seem to mesh. the materialists took over nearly every single catagory of scientific thought and cotinue to break it down into a series of chemical reactions of the brain or nervous system, all except the concept of mind.

 

so how bout it, mind, brain, or both?:eek2:

 

I think your friend's inevitablility thoery goes something like this:

 

The reason it may seem that life is filled with "inevidablitys" or things that are "meant to happen" is because of the way we react to life.

 

We are born into the world as very impressionable. We learn from our parents. How our parents behave shapes how we behave. how our parents behave was shaped by all of their experiences.

 

And also, genetics contribute to how be behave as well. But that is a direct cause of conforming to the environment that your heritage came from. Your genetics are caused directly by where all your family came from.

 

For example: Familys that grew up on the hot african plains... turned out with really dark skin... where as, irish people, being so far up north, hardly got any sun compared to these people.... which caused them to be light skinned. Same influences come from the nutrition we consume, the environment that we are in, the things we see.

 

Pretty much everything we experience shapes our family DNA. In that sense, a lot of how we act, behave, socialize, physical atrributes and such... can most likely be determined by our family history.

 

so, to sum things up, both atmosphere and genetics play a roll in shaping who we are as beings. Atmosphere probably plays a bigger roll... but I think genetics are still important, no doubt.

 

And if you think about it in these terms... psychologists can pretty much determine how a person will react in a certain situation IF that psychologist has enough background on that person's family history/upbringing/genetics/social life and such aspects.

 

BUT is this cause for inevitablitiy? maybe somewhat.... but I think there are also a lot of random factors that cause our characteristic inevitable nature to be more random. but who knows?

 

There are tons of different perspectives you can take on this subject. This is just one of them that I have thought about and contemplated.

[Qfwfq]

There have been threads about free will, here in the philosophy forums, you might be interested in some of the results of this search. It's often a good idea before starting a new thread, about a topic not unlikely to have been discussed, I used advanced search with the "titles only" option and found them. :eek2:

[Tarantism]

Dear Magic:

 

you completely skipped free will. i do not know if this is becuase you do not believe in it or if it is becuase you do not have an explaination for that within your explaination. a lot of what you seemed to be explaining reminded me of evolutionary theory, at least the genetics aspect, and the atmosphere aspect would entail who is present at the time of choice, and whose opinions play a greater manipulative role on the decider's ultimate decision.

 

i agree with all of that, only in my conclusions i have included the concept of free will into that argument, that is to say that whoever is making the decision can act in either direction, for better or worse, regardless of all influences. i say CAN becuase, while this is always the case, it rarely is only the decider who influances his or her own decision. there is almost always on outside factor, be it a friend or a family member, maybe even the weather that can effect the outcome of any decision.

 

however, i am getting off topic. what i am attemptiong to explain here is that:

 

1. choices are inevitable, and we face them nearly constantly.

2. when discussing Decision, one must include the factor of free will, which tells us that there is a seemingly infinate number of outcomes to any one choice,

3. now we must factor in genetics, be it family history or past lessons, also your inharent mannerisms, (family obesity, for example, could effect any number of eating decisions).

4. upon factoring in free will and genetics, one must now fator in outside influence of any kind, which will ultimately shape the outcome. this could include family or friends, as explained above.

 

in conclusion, the outcome of a decision is inevitable but beforehand undecided, and only after a decision has been made can it be deemed inevitable.

 

hope that makes sense, and i hope it provides insight into an alternative way of thinking.

[TheBigDog]

Tartanism, your friend is a fatalist. There is no such thing as destiny. The world is your to explore, or not to explore. Your decisions take you through life. Fatalism is a way of shirking responsibility. Don't buy into it.

 

Bill

[Queso]

yes, when it comes to free will, DEFINITELY check out all of the other tons of threads on the topic.

mr. big dog,

Yeah, the world is free

or whatever

but even your most random attempt to be funny

was going to happen all along.

 

every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

free will, IMHO, does not exist.

 

Funny, huh?

 

Anyways....yeah, read those threads. a lot of good information in them.

[TheBigDog]

mr. big dog,

Yeah, the world is free

or whatever

but even your most random attempt to be funny

was going to happen all along.

 

every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

free will, IMHO, does not exist.

 

Funny, huh?

If there is no free will then send me all your money. It is going to happen anyway, right? ;) Unless you choose another action.

 

Bill

[Queso]

Um,

no.

it wasn't going to happen.

 

that's not how it works.

your action was to ask me for money.

my reaction was **** that, i have no money.

 

that was going to happen all along.

[pgrmdave]

No matter how I look at it, I cannot accept that our brains are immune to the laws of physics. A thought exists because of the firing of neurons and interaction of chemicals. Those are physical processes. A thought is governed by laws, and cannot be free.

[TheBigDog]

No matter how I look at it, I cannot accept that our brains are immune to the laws of physics. A thought exists because of the firing of neurons and interaction of chemicals. Those are physical processes. A thought is governed by laws, and cannot be free.

Then why bother? Why make any decisions? If you are not in control of your own destiny then anything you decide to do is inevitable. Kill, rape, mame, party, relax... whatever. Nothing is the fault of your decision to do so, so you are not to blame for the consequences. And you are not suffering or enjoying any more than you would otherwise since your decision is inevitable, and your actions not your own responsibility.;)

 

Let me know how it works out.

 

Bill

[Drip Curl Magic]

Dear Magic:

 

you completely skipped free will.

 

Ahh, you see, but I didn't. I purposely left free will out of that equation... as I was simply presenting the argument for someone who may not believe in freewill.

 

I am not sure what I believe at this point. So, all I can do is submit arguing points for both sides. The side I was arguing for in that post was the "there is no such thing as free will" side.

 

I don't nesecarily believe in all that... but I believe there is just as strong of an argument for no free will as there is for free will.

 

 

 

however, i am getting off topic. what i am attemptiong to explain here is that:

 

1. choices are inevitable, and we face them nearly constantly.

 

agreed....

 

2. when discussing Decision, one must include the factor of free will, which tells us that there is a seemingly infinate number of outcomes to any one choice,

 

yes, considered....

 

Free will doesn't just suggest that there an infinite number of outcomes.... it also suggests that we have a free choice in those infinite number of outcomes. Free will is what we are trying to discuss here, correct?

 

3. now we must factor in genetics, be it family history or past lessons, also your inharent mannerisms, (family obesity, for example, could effect any number of eating decisions).

 

mhmmm....

 

4. upon factoring in free will and genetics, one must now fator in outside influence of any kind, which will ultimately shape the outcome. this could include family or friends, as explained above.

 

wait... now... doesn't this sum up the point I made?

 

in conclusion, the outcome of a decision is inevitable but beforehand undecided, and only after a decision has been made can it be deemed inevitable.

 

So, you think it's inevitable but undecided before hand.... but it can only be inevitable after the decision is made? Aren't you contradicting yourself, tart? maybe I just don't understand your train of thought.... maybe you can explain a little more?

[Loricybin]

i, too, am nuetral in that this is possible, but thus far unproven on both sides.

the following is MY PERSONAL distorted and floppy opinion. . .

 

-since every decision only has one outcome, and it is impossible to re-try it, it is very easy to assume that this is THE outcome, and always was going to happen, since it obviously DID. . .

 

-but it is just as easy to realize that you can ponder the decision's multiple outcomes before physically making an outcome happen . . . resulting in what would appear to be free will . . .

 

so wouldn't it be possible to assume that the free will of the decision maker was always to be the outcome?

 

i think this argument doesn't work quite right, as both can exist simultaniously.

 

AS I SEE IT anyway.

 

again, this is slightly flawed in that free will wouldn't exist within a predetermined universe, but it is the way I personally percieve and think.

 

just putting in input. . .

neroL-

[Loricybin]

i just thought of something else, too:

 

the timeline . . .

since clearly the past is what happened, the future is what WILL happen . . .

but think about this . . .

if an event is remebered by only one person, and it is remembered differently than the way it really happened, then what the person thinks becomes what really happened, as far as our conscious selves can see.

 

so what if you think about the future in a way that is different than what would happen if you remained idle, and the outcome is that you decided you would act on the situation, and it becomes something other than what WOULD have happened?

 

this would appear to be free will, but it is still only one outcome, which could be debated as predetermined.

any thoughts???

[Boerseun]

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then how do you explain the sequel, "Free Willy"?

[Drip Curl Magic]

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then how do you explain the sequel, "Free Willy"?

 

 

haha, I totally forgot about good ol' willy. My favorite whale of 'em all.

[Biochemist]

First, Q is correct. This topic has dozens of interesting threads already posted. That being said, there are really two views on this one is this:

 

A thought exists because of the firing of neurons and interaction of chemicals. Those are physical processes. A thought is governed by laws, and cannot be free.

...and this makes prgmdave a classic determinist. Life is nothing but a series of causes and effects. Determinists ignore the issues or implications asociates with first cause, and note that all subsequent effects were the resultant of earlier causes. It can seem either "fatalist" as BigDog mentioned above, or "pragmatic" if we are less colorful.

 

The rub with this is usually experiential. Most of us don't really believe that our core human values (love of family and friends, pursuit of altruism, appreciation of beauty, etc) are resultants of interacting particles. There is something special about them. If you think there is something special, that is, something that is uniquely valuable about these feelings and behaviors, it pretty much obligatorily makes you a theist of some sort. The external, spiritual, non-deterministic input is what allows a human to be a human.

 

Some have tried to carve a middle position (some flavor of humanism) where there is free will but no God, but this position is usually regarded as philosophically inconsistent.

 

So there you have it. If you think/believe that love is real (and requires an independent decision) then you pretty much have to be a theist. If you are a determinist, these are all just biochemical interactions that advantage us in our environment. You can feel free to run over children and burn down you neighbors house. There is no moral load or personal responsibility.

 

A lot of folks (including ours truly) have problems with the second scenario.