is there a free will?

[John Galaor]

If someone is interested in debating this topic, but felt unsure, he can consult in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

Sometimes, some religious or other sort of freaks, accuse gays of having made the choice of living in sin.

Then, the question of making a choice is related directly to free will.

Is it the will totally determined by past events?

 

I suppose this topic would be as popular as a week old dead cow during the summer in Kansas in a windless day.

 

I would say something farther on this topic in about seven or ten days.

I am betting 10 dollars nobody would participate in this debate.

John Galaor

[TrevorTime]

I did not "choose" to be gay, it's just the way things worked out for me. And I don't feel that I am living in sin. How is it sinful if I care about another human being? The fact that he has the same parts as me shouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

[Y_B]

This is actually a really interesting topic and touches on philosophical terms

 

First, one would have to fully define what "free will" is and to what extent. Pure or absolute free will being free from constraints or influences is rare but I believe it does exhibit itself. However it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish what actions are the result of absolute free will or having been influenced to some degree. Ultimately, I don't think the semantics of it really matters much and it's one of those things that you can ponder about your entire life but still not having it serve you any purpose.

 

As far as choosing to be gay goes....well, according to Lady Gaga, we were all born this way. So I suppose until someone else comes up with a mindlessly-repeating-radio-playing-hit called "Chosen This Way", I'll go with Gaga.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Yang Bang

[hh5]

This is actually a really interesting topic and touches on philosophical terms

 

First, one would have to fully define what "free will" is and to what extent. Pure or absolute free will being free from constraints or influences is rare but I believe it does exhibit itself. However it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish what actions are the result of absolute free will or having been influenced to some degree. Ultimately, I don't think the semantics of it really matters much and it's one of those things that you can ponder about your entire life but still not having it serve you any purpose.

 

Like child, kid, or a teens ... how much free will do they have ... its limited and the function of the parents influence in their lives ...

it varies between different cultures and how modern the family is

 

In religion ie: Christianity freewill been argued and some conclude ... not ... even though god gave us free will ... catch-22 ... god doesn't help believers ... because of freewill ... but we don't have freewill

or perhaps we're not good at exercising it or completely understand how much freewill we have.

[Cyhort]

I think free will exists because otherwise there's no point to life. If we're all just here to fill the roles that god or fate or destiny or whatever you wanna call it set out for us then nothing we do matters. Our accomplishments mean nothing because we were always going to accomplish them. Our loves don't matter because they were always going to be our loves. Nothing an individual does matters and I can't accept that because I truly believe that an individual being in charge of his own life and destiny is the most important part of being alive.

 

As far as being gay goes I don't think that's a choice. Just like being straight isn't a choice and just like whether or not you like Italian food is a choice. I hate pizza and I love cock, I don't recall ever making a choice about either.

[old bob]

.......

I suppose this topic would be as popular as a week old dead cow during the summer in Kansas in a windless day.

I would say something farther on this topic in about seven or ten days.

I am betting 10 dollars nobody would participate in this debate.

John Galaor

You lost your bet.

Free will exist . My own life is the best proof of it.

If you know who you really are, if you accept your limits and dont try to decide anything beyond them,

if you care about all the experiences you made and if your will is still strong enough, I will feel you free.

The only problem : you will have to live long enough to reach this goal. It took me at least 40 years .

[Michael9344]

Free Will? That depends on how you explain it. Personally, I don't think free will exists in most things. We are often controlled by things. Friends, family, and generally the environment.But being gay? Heck, I don't know. I don't think anything caused it. I'm born this way. I didn't choose to be bashed, hated and being told I'm going to hell.I'm just me, the full me.

[JamesSavik]

I think, therefore I am.

 

I have my own mind, independent of anyone and anything else.

 

I have self interests which I protect.

 

Therefore, I must have free will.

 

No one has any say in the complex mix of factors that form their sexuality. In fact, in the science of human development it is thought that sexual orientation is set by the age of three.

 

In this context, Free will is limited in scope to those things that you actually DO have a choice about.

[Agaith]

Hmm it's funny that I read an article in New Scientist today about free will. From the looks of it, people's opinion of whether free will exists can change quite a bit and people's responses to certain social situations or challenges change between those who think they have free will and those that dont

[John Galaor]

You lost your bet.

Free will exist . My own life is the best proof of it.

If you know who you really are, if you accept your limits and dont try to decide anything beyond them,

if you care about all the experiences you made and if your will is still strong enough, I will feel you free.

The only problem : you will have to live long enough to reach this goal. It took me at least 40 years .

 

 

I have lost my bet. I did not hope anyone would reply to this topic in ten days. But they did.

 

Nevertheless i feel not free to tell my mind on this topic not to offend the opinions of other people in this thread.

 

I have long ago thought about this topic, specially when I was writing a book on psychology. Then, I do not dare to enter into this fray.

Then, at least, this containment on my part proves to some degree that I do not feel free, that I fear to offend other people.

I don't want to be hated. Then, when I read a story that is badly composed, I not to say it looks to my eyes rather trashy; I cannot tell what I think. So, in part, we are controlled by other people. We are up to some point, tamed by society. But we are not fully tamed, in the sense that we do all our parents wanted us to be doing.

In the same sense, being gay proves that we were not totally tamed. Or perhaps we were tamed, but by some other forces withing us. Perhaps we had a strong lust. Perhaps we needed some other males had that we needed.

Then, we can think we are freer than others because we are gay, and did not follow the directions that outlawed gay sex. But, on the other hand, it can be said that we had been driven by inner forces withing us, like the strong forces of lust. Then, while some people had little lust, could abstain to do something, and others do not.

 

It is any case, can be put an example of doing a free choice?

 

Well, let us imagine that we have on a plate an apple and an orange. It looks pretty simple to imagine we are here free to exercise a free will.

 

Is it that possible? It looks likely.

Just imagine the choice is banal in the sense that we do not care or have not any preference between an apple and and orange. Well, it is not that easy.

If is summer and we are unconsciously feeling some thirst, we would choose an orange, for an orange has more water. If we were more hungry than thirsty, we would had chosen the apple, for it has less water by weight than an orange. While an orange has a 95% of water, an apple can have an 80% of water. Then, at weight equal the apple is more nutritive than the orange.

 

Then there are more reasons to contaminate the free will. Nobody knows but the person doing a choice that he has a hidden hate for any of the two pieces of fruit.

Otherwise, the person could had eaten a lot of oranges yesterday, and now prefers an apple.

Other case can be the result that I hate my aunt Susan, that is a hateful bitch; well, she was very fond of oranges and was always doing propaganda of oranges. Then since I had many aversive experiences with my Aunt Susan I hate oranges even if I am not aware of the reason why.

Then, in this case, even if I do not remember that I hate aunt Susan, I have chosen an apple. But I could think I like a lot more apples than oranges, and so on.

 

Then, our likes and dislikes can be related to our past experiences in life. Then, we can never be sure what are the reasons behind anything we are doing. Sometimes you see the face of someone and you dislike but you do not know the reason. Then, this can be related to a past experience you had in life. The face of this person can be linked to someone that looked that some person that did you wrong or that treated you in a bad manner or had made your life miserable long ago, when you were a kid or a young man.

 

Then, anything we are doing can be related or determined to our former experience in life.

Just imagine you are giving a choice to someone between a food you know well and you like, and another food you do not know, or that you know you dislike.

Then, in this case we are not before an example of a free choice.

 

Let's imagine another story. It is suppose you have to like women, for you a male. For for some reason you had experienced that women do not feel any sympathy for you. You feel like rebuked by ladies. Then if can be understandable that you put your eyes on other people that show you some form of love. Then, if you had pleasant experiences with other males but not with females, you cannot have a free choice between females and males.

 

To put the things at the most easy, a free choice is when the alternative to choose are so equivalent that is a banal choice.

But if they offer you choice between something you like and something you hate this is not a free choice at all.

Then this example does not prove you have a free will.

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

We have no choice but to have free will. The choice of actions we can make are limited and influanced by other individuals but they themselves made their choices because of their free will. I know it almost sounds like I am making an argument for determinism however at any point in the chain of events you or I can go off on a tangent in principle and alter the course. If you claim you cannot alter the course then the whole of society realy wouldnt work.

 

Not only does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy, you didnt choose to go down a new path it was a predetermined anyway which I've always thought was a very weak argument in philosophy and various other feilds. It means no one is responcible for their own actions which is the foundation for the majority of the worlds judiciary. How can those be punished who are not compus mentis, they could justify insanity if they had no control over their actions, it would also stretch into civil proceedings to.

 

In addition morality becomes an issue without freewill, the state of various countries globally, I also imagine it would do even more damage to people who have to suffer at the hands of abuse. There is more but as this is only a preliminary I'll wait for that $10 exchanged in to sterling because alot of people love philosophy.

 

Edit: Beat me by one minute!

Edited April 15, 2011 by BeysJoshersLepton V2

[John Galaor]

We have no choice but to have free will. The choice of actions we can make are limited and influanced by other individuals but they themselves made their choices because of their free will. I know it almost sounds like I am making an argument for determinism however at any point in the chain of events you or I can go off on a tangent in principle and alter the course. If you claim you cannot alter the course then the whole of society realy wouldnt work.

 

Not only does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy, you didnt choose to go down a new path it was a predetermined anyway which I've always thought was a very weak argument in philosophy and various other feilds. It means no one is responcible for their own actions which is the foundation for the majority of the worlds judiciary. How can those be punished who are not compus mentis, they could justify insanity if they had no control over their actions, it would also stretch into civil proceedings to.

 

In addition morality becomes an issue without freewill, the state of various countries globally, I also imagine it would do even more damage to people who have to suffer at the hands of abuse. There is more but as this is only a preliminary I'll wait for that $10 exchanged in to sterling because alot of people love philosophy.

 

Edit: Beat me by one minute!

 

well, as you say "We have no choice but to have free will." perhaps you mean that for as long as we are alive we will be doing something that we like to do. Everybody eats something daily. He also have to drink some water. Some people also had a beer from time to time, or drink a whiskey or something.

Then people use to sleep in a bed, has a home, a work, etc. he is doing something on a daily bases, almost on a daily bases, because he is simple alive. For as long as we stay alive we are doing something we like, mostly because of our past experience. Like any animal do. So the animals had also their own free will, I suppose.

 

Why do I mention our past experience? Well, just imagine that I never had eaten some Chinese or Tibetan food. Well, the most probable outcome of this is that I will not eat in the future this kind of food.

Lets consider other questions, I never go to bars or restaurants. I had gone a few times but I do not like to go. Them I met an old friend from my adolescence that want me to go to a bar to chat and had a beer. I do not want but he insists. Then I felt obliged to go to a bar to have a beer with an old friend that I barely remember his face. Then, I go to a bar, but this was forced. I did no go the bar because I have a free will. Simply put, I wanted to be kind to him or something; perhaps I do not wanted to look aloof.

 

It can imagine instances in which we are obliged to go to a war, or to accept a work one dislikes, for one needs to earn some money, etc.

Then you are doing all this because you need the money, and it is not any easy to find a work you would like.

Then, being social animals we are forced to do somethings we do not like specially because we are social, and you do not want to be excessively isolated from other people. In a certain way, I am chatting here, because I need to speak to some other people. Living mostly alone, I need someone to talk to from time to time.

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

But we can choose to not eat daily e.g. fasting or a protest. An individuals routine from the past does not mean they will do the same thing in the future 100% it is a high probability I will eat tommorow or enjoy some vodka being saterday but I may not. In terms of emotional obligations to someone these can still be said no to if you wanted to. Accepting work you dont like for money however is just part of the social contact you have agreed to, people pick up and leave and do anything they want out of the blue everyday in society. I agree the majority of people are social animals but some people naturally are withdrawn or shy or some choose no human contact at all.

[Tommy_B]

Free will to do what or be what? To determine your own salvation? Calvin vs Arminius?

 

Obviously there is free will to pick up a stick or free will to cross the street, but so what.

 

Theologians have argued this for centuries and no one has pulled ahead in the debate.

 

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

[sucre]

I read in a book once that while we think we have control over the things we do, in all reality, we let others make decisions for us, whether it be how we perceive how society "should" be, or even as mundane as choosing which brand of soda to buy in the marketplace, as advertisements and media influence us. In other words, we allow things and people to fill our heads for us so we don't have to think hard about anything. Considering how said book affected me without my having to come to a conclusion sans novel, I can't help but think that the author might've been on to something.

Without putting a supreme deity or whatever into the equation, I believe that our only free will lies in the ability to manipulate others and shape society for the advancement or even just the survival of our race so we don't descend into pure anarchy. For example, when you do something good, you are manipulating into making others think that the action is intrinsically benevolent, even though our definitions of "good" and "bad" are just simplified perceptions of human nature that don't necessarily occur anywhere else. Likewise, when you commit a crime, you manipulate others into thinking it's a heinous thing to do, so that the major lot of us will act "good" from then on. We have already tamed ourselves so much and shared our ideas and manipulated others into believing them that untainted, original free will no longer exists anymore but in a corrupt form. We can't just murder someone because "hey why not" and nobody won't care because it's "free will, so he can do whatever", so perhaps it's for the best...

I hope that made sense. I'm not very good at conveying my ideas via typing.

Also, about choosing to be gay... biology is completely unrelated to human free will. It's not like you chose to have brown eyes, or red hair when you were born, so choosing sexuality makes about as much sense to me as choosing to walk barefoot on a bed of molten lava. The only thing you can "choose"--or be manipulated into--is your belief in a religion, or even lack of one. Sin is a definition we have created for ourselves, and now I believe we must manipulate ourselves into reevaluating it.

[Dark Princess]

I believe that free will is just an illusion! I mean after all, we cant run from fate! Soon enough it will catch up on us.

 

We are all made by God, He wanted us how we are, and we should not question Him. 'Full stop'

(I agree with my girl Lady Gaga when it comes to this. Born this way - Lady Gaga)

[John Galaor]

We have no choice but to have free will. The choice of actions we can make are limited and influenced by other individuals but they themselves made their choices because of their free will. I know it almost sounds like I am making an argument for determinism however at any point in the chain of events you or I can go off on a tangent in principle and alter the course. If you claim you cannot alter the course then the whole of society really wouldn't work.

 

Not only does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy, you didn't choose to go down a new path it was a predetermined anyway which I've always thought was a very weak argument in philosophy and various other fields. It means no one is responsible for their own actions which is the foundation for the majority of the worlds judiciary. How can those be punished who are "non compos mentis", they could justify insanity if they had no control over their actions, it would also stretch into civil proceedings to.

 

In addition morality becomes an issue without freewill, the state of various countries globally, I also imagine it would do even more damage to people who have to suffer at the hands of abuse. There is more but as this is only a preliminary I'll wait for that $10 exchanged in to sterling because a lot of people love philosophy.

 

Edit: Beat me by one minute!

 

There are two different points in your argument, at least.

 

One is the concept of free will as such. Being free means is not conditioned. By example, just imagine a shop-lifter who wants to steal something. He looks around to see if anyone, specially a guard, is watching before getting the good he wants to lift. If a security guard is looking, he would contained itself, if nobody is watching the thief gets what he wants.

Then, in both cases, his behavior is not free. He steals because they had learned long ago to take good things without asking or paying for it. The result of his stealing is to consume something, or show the good he stole to his friends, as if telling, you see? I have also the same things as you.

It is not different to playing tennis or a piano. You cannot play any of this unless you had passed for some training that has taken many hours of your life. Then, to be able to play tennis is something conditional to your previous experience in life. The same with shop-lifting. If the person is trained in a way, that he can easily satisfy the consumption or possession of some common desired goods, they you are not going to become a shoplifter. Specially if you know that to steal can have undesirable consequences. You can be trained in such a way that you fear these consequences, and do not want to get involved in such actions.

 

It is a little like a child being disobedient. It can be postulated, that a child is disobedient in a high degree, by the consequences of this behavior. It means the child gets a lot of attentions for being disobedient.

Then, to be disobedient is neither a free option, but the result of a particular conditioning at home. It starts to be lerned in the first few years of life.

 

Another question is that if the agent of an action has a knowledge of the probable consequences of his act. Only a mad man has not a previous knowledge of that.

 

Then, there is a will all right, but it is not a free will. The agent of a conscious action whatever wants to have some form of gratification. For the aim of most actions are feel a gratification. Other question altogether is that such an action would be prohibited by a law.

 

Then, instead of "free will", we would be better talking of a "conscious action", with a knowledge of the implications of our acts.

 

I reject the concept of "free will", for any conscious action is the result of some learning or some natural inner force that drives us towards some action.

 

An example of free will has to be banal. That would be the case of choosing between apples and pears, when both fruits are equally appealing. But if the agent that chooses feels a phobia for any of the elements to choose, there is not freewill either.

 

Then, the argument of some religious fundies about gays, that is a sexual choice, is fake. Is fake in the sense that most gays do not feel attracted for the opposite sex. Or just is case a gay person feels a mild attraction for the opposite gender, there are some other problems involved that made the choice impractical.

By example, I can feet attracted to Julia Robberts, like many other males, but I cannot choose her as a mate, for she would not accept me as a potential mate. Then, once you had been rejected so many times by Julia Robberts as a pretender, you will forget this fancy and focus on any other thing.

[Riley Jericho]

My penneth?

It depends what you mean...

 

I think there's a difference between doing and being. Clearly I have choice in any of my 'doing', but in my 'being'...?

 

Riley J

[John Galaor]

But we can choose to not eat daily e.g. fasting or a protest. An individuals routine from the past does not mean they will do the same thing in the future 100% it is a high probability I will eat tommorow or enjoy some vodka being saterday but I may not. In terms of emotional obligations to someone these can still be said no to if you wanted to. Accepting work you dont like for money however is just part of the social contact you have agreed to, people pick up and leave and do anything they want out of the blue everyday in society. I agree the majority of people are social animals but some people naturally are withdrawn or shy or some choose no human contact at all.

 

You comment probably means, that our behavior is not predictable in an exact way. That's true. Our behavior routines fluctuates around some average. But nobody can know how much a priori unless they had a detailed record of our behavior for a long time. In this way, by making of log of the behavior, we can have an idea of how often do you drink whiskey, by example, or any other liquor, or a beer.

Then, the patterns of your drinking behavior, or any other behavior, can be predicted withing a limited degree of certitude. For the records, can show if your are a regular drinker or not. By example, a bottle of whiskey can last in my house as much as six months. But this is not a fixed time. Sometimes the bottle can be consumed in two months. Then it is not easy to define an average time to consume this bottle, unless you take into account the spread of the numbers.

Then a person can have predictable patterns of behavior in some behaviors and not in others. I am almost regular man to go to sleep, around 12 pm. But this fluctuates. I got some periods of going to bed earlier, and other periods I go later. Then the property of this behavior cannot be defined by an average, but by an average plus/minus some normal spread in time. The average do not tell us about how much it can vary from a time to another. Let's imagine that a person goes to bed, at 11 pm, plus or minus 72 minutes, with a probability near 95% This is can be called a prediction.

[John Galaor]

But we can choose to not eat daily e.g. fasting or a protest. An individuals routine from the past does not mean they will do the same thing in the future 100% it is a high probability I will eat tomorrow or enjoy some vodka being Saturday but I may not. In terms of emotional obligations to someone these can still be said no to if you wanted to. Accepting work you dont like for money however is just part of the social contact you have agreed to, people pick up and leave and do anything they want out of the blue everyday in society. I agree the majority of people are social animals but some people naturally are withdrawn or shy or some choose no human contact at all.

 

we can start not to eat tomorrow, but this behavior cannot last very long, unless some one keeps encouraging your for fasting. An example extreme can be seen in the terrorist suicides. No one ca become a suicide on it own, without some social interface. I mean, the person that suicides, for religious, political, or personal motives, is in some form of relation with others. In the case of political suicides, there is involved a form of heroism. The individual wants to have some form of social ascent, some form of social appreciation. As a voluntary suicide soldier, he is rewarded verbally with praises, and probably there is involved some monetary gratification for his family. Then this is possible. He cannot desert of his voluntary mission of sacrifice for he would become a pariah, or would end with a much lower status than he had before.

In the case of other suicides, like those of the Twin Towers of NYC, they were doing a team. But becoming a team, nobody dares to back off and desert the mission. For not anyone want to be seen as a traitor or a cowards by the other members of the team.

 

So, it looks like it was a case of free will, but it is not. Is a form of social compulsion that gets you trapped into the act. You are held prisoner by a social cage or a prison. Your personality is so strongly entwined with that of other people, that you are not autonomous.

have you seen the experiment of Salomon Asch? Here is a link to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

There are two different points in your argument, at least.

 

One is the concept of free will as such. Being free means is not conditioned. By example, just imagine a shop-lifter who wants to steal something. He looks around to see if anyone, specially a guard, is watching before getting the good he wants to lift. If a security guard is looking, he would contained itself, if nobody is watching the thief gets what he wants.

Then, in both cases, his behavior is not free. He steals because they had learned long ago to take good things without asking or paying for it. The result of his stealing is to consume something, or show the good he stole to his friends, as if telling, you see? I have also the same things as you.

It is not different to playing tennis or a piano. You cannot play any of this unless you had passed for some training that has taken many hours of your life. Then, to be able to play tennis is something conditional to your previous experience in life. The same with shop-lifting. If the person is trained in a way, that he can easily satisfy the consumption or possession of some common desired goods, they you are not going to become a shoplifter. Specially if you know that to steal can have undesirable consequences. You can be trained in such a way that you fear these consequences, and do not want to get involved in such actions.

 

It is a little like a child being disobedient. It can be postulated, that a child is disobedient in a high degree, by the consequences of this behavior. It means the child gets a lot of attentions for being disobedient.

Then, to be disobedient is neither a free option, but the result of a particular conditioning at home. It starts to be lerned in the first few years of life.

 

Another question is that if the agent of an action has a knowledge of the probable consequences of his act. Only a mad man has not a previous knowledge of that.

 

Then, there is a will all right, but it is not a free will. The agent of a conscious action whatever wants to have some form of gratification. For the aim of most actions are feel a gratification. Other question altogether is that such an action would be prohibited by a law.

 

Then, instead of "free will", we would be better talking of a "conscious action", with a knowledge of the implications of our acts.

 

I reject the concept of "free will", for any conscious action is the result of some learning or some natural inner force that drives us towards some action.

 

An example of free will has to be banal. That would be the case of choosing between apples and pears, when both fruits are equally appealing. But if the agent that chooses feels a phobia for any of the elements to choose, there is not freewill either.

 

Then, the argument of some religious fundies about gays, that is a sexual choice, is fake. Is fake in the sense that most gays do not feel attracted for the opposite sex. Or just is case a gay person feels a mild attraction for the opposite gender, there are some other problems involved that made the choice impractical.

By example, I can feet attracted to Julia Robberts, like many other males, but I cannot choose her as a mate, for she would not accept me as a potential mate. Then, once you had been rejected so many times by Julia Robberts as a pretender, you will forget this fancy and focus on any other thing.

 

I agree that we are from a very early age conditioned through operant conditioning & in some cases this may even mean chastisement. The adult world conditions through social stigma, law, social standing etc but this training to behave in a certain way does not remove freewill because you only have to look at the world to see they are not all mad men. You are right in that by examing an individuals habits through longitudinal means you can attain a prediction but never know with certainty. I understand however why you wish to talk about an informed conscious action rather then freewill due to the nature of our previous learnt experiances. I think we differ on our meaning of freewill, I know I am conditioned not to steal or be disobedient to my mothers but the choice for me to do so especially the latter has occured and may again occur in the future. It is this possibility to act differently no matter how small and regardless of conditioning which gives freewill in my opinion, its all relative these definitions.

 

I do not think anyone has been alive however with your view of freewill, free from all forms of conditioning or social restraint. A person without that would have no connection to anyone or anything and even though it may sound they could do as they please I would imagine their wouldnt be anything which pleases them because even personal gratification means conditioning on some level. I also still stand by the necessity of freewill for moral accountability. In regard to being gay well I will admit to being a slight biological determinist, Its as much a part of me biologically as say my cognitive abiity, It would not matter if I lived to be 300 there would be a ceiling on how much I could develop what I know.

 

Edit: Yes I am aware of Asch's conformity experiments, and the fact no scientific research has confirmed freewill without influance from society or biology of our brains.

Edited April 18, 2011 by BeysJoshersLepton V2

[Voltaire]

This definitely belongs in the soap box. Oh well.

 

I've had this discussion so many times in the past, and the only thing I've learned is that the only thing to learn on the topic is the lack of learning to be had. Failing to prove something is not the same as disproving it, so bringing up points like that are useless. The only points I could make on this subject worth anything to anyone involve quantum physics and consciousness. It's really not something I feel like explaining, though. Maybe someone else, probably more informed on the unpredictability of electron clouds, the nature of consciousness in quantum mechanics and the evidence for consciousness being separate from the brain, could do this instead. I am but a lowly former arts student, and unfit to wield such grand tools as science.

[Matthew Jacob]

I have always thought that the exstence of Free WIll is dependent on whether or not the person belives in Fate, Destiny, or Serendipity.

If you believe in any of these (as I do) then the concept of free will can somtimes be a slippery one,

given that the Powers that Be have already traced a Destiny for you, then every choice you make

has already been made for you.

 

If you dod not believe in any of the thress, then free will exists in an easier pocket, given that you make your own destiny

then every choice you make is in fact yours, and not guided by the hand of the POwers that Be to get you from point A

to Point B.

 

The third school of thought finds the balance between the two that states that we were given Free Will and allowed to choose

our own paths through life. Theres a destination, but there is no set path that will take us there. We will never miss the ultimate mark, but we

wont always do exactly what the Powers that Be thought we might do.

 

Therefore the existence of Free Will lies exclusively with the individual (or group).

 

The "choice" to be gay is not one that was ever presented to me, I simply was, am and will be.

I'm ME since the day I was Born and will remain ME till the day my body goes intlo the pyre

[John Galaor]

I agree that we are from a very early age conditioned through operant conditioning & in some cases this may even mean chastisement. The adult world conditions through social stigma, law, social standing etc but this training to behave in a certain way does not remove freewill because you only have to look at the world to see they are not all mad men. You are right in that by examing an individuals habits through longitudinal means you can attain a prediction but never know with certainty. I understand however why you wish to talk about an informed conscious action rather then freewill due to the nature of our previous learnt experiances. I think we differ on our meaning of freewill, I know I am conditioned not to steal or be disobedient to my mothers but the choice for me to do so especially the latter has occured and may again occur in the future. It is this possibility to act differently no matter how small and regardless of conditioning which gives freewill in my opinion, its all relative these definitions.

 

I do not think anyone has been alive however with your view of freewill, free from all forms of conditioning or social restraint. A person without that would have no connection to anyone or anything and even though it may sound they could do as they please I would imagine their wouldnt be anything which pleases them because even personal gratification means conditioning on some level. I also still stand by the necessity of freewill for moral accountability. In regard to being gay well I will admit to being a slight biological determinist, Its as much a part of me biologically as say my cognitive abiity, It would not matter if I lived to be 300 there would be a ceiling on how much I could develop what I know.

 

Edit: Yes I am aware of Asch's conformity experiments, and the fact no scientific research has confirmed freewill without influance from society or biology of our brains.

 

Ok. Perhaps, to clear this argument, we should focus a little around an acceptable definition common to both of us. I remember I had an argument with someone that lasted too long. I was due to the fault of a common definition.

I do not think we are so far off each other. Concise Oxford defines freewill as "voluntary".

I cannot argue with this, meaning that "one decides to do something for he likes it". That is is not forced to act in this case. Like in going to a war, or some Mondays going to work, etc.

Then, if this is the idea you have of free will we are totally in accord.

I was considering a different case. That case was considering that we can choose something like at random, without any previous knowledge or experience of our choice.

The most likely case would be when we taste some unknown food. Just imagine that a friend invites you to an Asiatic restaurant. You had never been to an ethnic restaurant in your life. You had never tasted exotic food in your life for you were raised in a small village of North Dakota. Well, then you go to this restaurant because your are pressed psychologically from your new friend. Then, as you want to be friend to him, you accept going to a Vietnamese restaurant. This is not a case of free will, of course. You go there conditioned by other reasons. Then the same occurs with the food, etc. You tasted, then you said, well, this is not so bad, and so on. You slowly get into the business of eating this exotic food, etc. Well, in any case, this experience was not the result of free decision. It was in a way conditioned. Just imagine that while you are eating this food, your friend is being so nice and so lovely, that the taste of the food becomes a secondary question, almost banal, not having any importance, for really this food does not tastes bad.

Then, I was considering the freewill as independent of our experience. By example, I am tired and falling sleep. Then I say "I'm going to sleep" Well, this will be a free action, is a form of free will. No. I cannot be a case of free will, because my body was asking me to sleep.

Let's us try another example. In this moment, I want to play a piano. Well, is this a case of freewill? Perhaps not. I only could play the piano decently, I am not a star playing the piano, because I had been training like five thousand hours. I did as much work for my mum was always praising me and telling what a good pianist I was, and how much she liked to hear me playing the piano. Then, even if in this moment I want to play the piano, this is what I am feeling in this moment, and nobody is pushing me to play. I am alone. But instead to teaching me lovely to play, my mum would had been bitching me into playing the piano, I would had been hating to play that thing. So, in a case, the voluntary action of playing was the result of being more or less well trained into that. In the case I hated to play that thing, I will do it only if forced to do it.

then, the idea of a choice, only is valid when both options are equally pleasant and cost the same effort.

If you have to choose between eating an apple you have on a plate before your eyes, and eating a pear that is in hill, and you have to go to fetch the pear going up... the options are not equivalent.

In the case of a gay male that do not feel any sexual attraction for a female you cannot invoke the freedom to choose with some other sexual experiences. Then it is not a valid statement.

 

Then, we do something because in this moment we feel like doing it. The idea had come to our mind in this moment, and you say to yourself, I am going to do this, or that. It is free in the sense, that it has come spontaneously to your mind in this moment, but it is not independent (that is is not free) in the sense that has some relation with your past experience.

Then, let's consider the case of a gay, too young to have had any sexual experience. Then, for unknown reasons he began to feel some thrilling, some exciting on his mind, watching another boy his age, or a little older. Well, you cannot explain this for the experience of this boy, but you can postulate that something has awakened in his brain while he watched another boy of his age. Then, is neither a free election. It just happened, with you knowing the reason.

Then... freewill exists? I depends on how we are going to define the concept.

if we say, do do anything that we like to do, then this is free will, then it is ok for me.

 

If I say, we cannot do not anything freely, for it all results from some experiences and conditions of our body (environment) and our genetics makeup, also a determinism of different class.

A person who has not learned English to some degree cannot choose to speak in English, etc.

[John Galaor]

This definitely belongs in the soap box. Oh well.

 

I've had this discussion so many times in the past, and the only thing I've learned is that the only thing to learn on the topic is the lack of learning to be had. Failing to prove something is not the same as disproving it, so bringing up points like that are useless. The only points I could make on this subject worth anything to anyone involve quantum physics and consciousness. It's really not something I feel like explaining, though. Maybe someone else, probably more informed on the unpredictability of electron clouds, the nature of consciousness in quantum mechanics and the evidence for consciousness being separate from the brain, could do this instead. I am but a lowly former arts student, and unfit to wield such grand tools as science.

 

I was simply trying to train our minds in a little exercise. It all depends on... well, we cannot be certain about many things. In science we have only banal certitudes. But even one of these banal certitudes one day will give us a surprise for we have to change the paradigm that we had used till present to understand it.