do you believe in free will?

Student Lounge College Life
1

<p>might as well post this since college life is becoming the philosophy 101 discussion forum. the other thread about god is getting crowded, so i'll post this in a new thread to reduce clutter.</p>

<p>the way i see it, there's 4 possible viewpoints about free will, probably with a lot of sub-opinions.</p>

<p>1) free will exists, and there's a scientific way to prove it exists
2) free will exists in a mystical/spiritual/religious sense, we can't prove it scientifically
3) free will does not exist, it would violate scientific laws
4) free will does not exist, because it would violate god's will.</p>

<p>i believe 2.</p>

2

<p>haha i didn’t bother looking at the god thread, because i knew it would turn into the usual: innocent guy asks question, obnoxious philosophy majors come marching in and act like dbags, annoying religious nuts come charging in, angry atheists start ripping people apart …and it turns into a neverending circle of bs.
just whip 'em out and compare, boys :wink: </p>

<p>i think free will is like gravity - it exists whether you believe in it or not. and if there is a god (idk if there is, haven’t died yet), then he’ll let you do whatever the hell you want down here so he can roast you like a smore for it later.</p>

<p>*edit: except i think that if there IS a god, he wouldn’t be the uptight one all the christians/muslims/jews/etc are always going on about. he would be awesome and look vaguely like stanley from the office.</p>

3

<p>If there’s a #1, why is it up for debate?</p>

<p>Oh, wait, ignore that. I was thinking…nevermind.</p>

<p>I think it exists, but I’m not sure in what capacity.</p>

4

<p>It’s impossible to argue against free-will. That would be a performative contradiction.</p>

<p>Trust me, I’m a philosophy major. And like Alix said, if you argue against me, I’ll act like a dbag and belittle you :)</p>

5

<p>Are you really a philosophy major? REALLY? :D</p>

<p>What’s that big phrase you used at the end of your second sentence?</p>

6

<p>the individual can only prove he or she exists and nothing else. thank you Descartes.</p>

<p>as for free will, you can argue the wind all you want and you can argue god all you want…</p>

7

<p>In the sense that we have a higher being who has the ability to take control of our actions, even if he/she/it chooses not to, no I don’t. I also don’t think that if a higher being had the power to control our will, but doesn’t, that the ability for us to “choose” our actions would be free will because we technically wouldn’t have ultimate control. What I do see as plausible is that our brain/body can start the process of doing an action before we “decide” to do the action or that we do choose our actions, be it consciously or subconsciously. Frankly, I don’t know the answer, probably will not know the answer in my lifetime, and am not completely sure that there can be only one answer. It is an intriguing question though.</p>

8

<p>That’s not what Descartes meant! </p>

<p>Any yes, I’m a (soon to be) philosophy major. I’m in community college right now, but as soon as I transfer…</p>

<p>…But lets just pretend I’m at a top 10 school studying philosophy for the moment. Now I can claim superiority when I argue!</p>

9

<p>philosophy major + tossing in top 10 school casually to claim superiority + arguing descartes on CC = super dbag stats. Congrats, we should date in real life :P</p>

<p>seriously, I have a valid scientific theory that 98% of arguments between men could be resolved if they simply took off their pants and compared. </p>

<p>PS - today I was sipping Ssips iced tea and there was a descartes quote on the side. on the other side was nutrition information.</p>

10

<p>If I haven’t even ever seen my own junk, you can be sure no one else is ever going to ;)</p>

<p>How do women argue? <em>Insert predictable “topless” joke</em></p>

<p>And here we are, back to pr0n.</p>

11

<p>What is "free will’? What does it mean for the self to be free? A person is only the product of everything and everyone s/he has experienced, which is a totally arbitrary matter of history, culture, and environment. The self only exists in relation to others and his surroundings.</p>

12

<p>I wonder if anyone can defend positions 1. & 3. This entire debate takes place on a plane beyond what we experience–science is no good here.</p>

13

<p>There is no such thing as free will. I believe Kurt Vonnegut said something to the effect of ‘Everything that has happened will happen and continue to happen the way it always has.’ (paraphrasing) </p>

<p>Once you can wrap your mind around time as a 4th dimension and everything that encompasses, there is very little room for free will. </p>

<p>icanread has a good (and very condensed) opinion. You do what you do because of: genes, upbringing, culture, prior experiences, etc. Your actions are the logical outcomes due to these previous factors.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>yeah but it’s not like the ‘course of events’ is some solution to a differential equation (the hardest differential equation in the world). that argument is only convincing if you already believe that everything is predetermined.</p>

15

<p>Most scientists and philosophers believe that there is no such thing as free will, but they it’s better that people keep the illusion.</p>

<p>[Bering</a> in Mind: Scientists say free will probably doesn’t exist, but urge: “Don’t stop believing!”](<a href=“http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=scientists-say-free-will-probably-d-2010-04-06]Bering”>http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=scientists-say-free-will-probably-d-2010-04-06)</p>

16

<p>Well, isn’t that a bit contradictory? First they say they have no free will; then they say they need to delude others into thinking there is free will. </p>

<p>The second action obviously implies free will. They act as if they have responsibility and can take actions to change the course of events.</p>

17

<p>I’ll elaborate on what I was saying in my previous post about the performative contradiction in arguing against free will:</p>

<p>If I say I have free will, or more generally, if I argue anything at all, I am necessarily implying at least one thing: That there is truth and it can be discovered.</p>

<p>Arguing against free will contradicts this (in more ways than one, but I’ll just focus on one). </p>

<p>Why should I believe your argument if you are telling me that it is just the product of the chain of cause and effect?</p>

18

<p>You’ll either believe it or you won’t & this was predetermined from the beginning of time. I guess (although this is where this debate gets hard–the following words may not have a lot of meaning) you don’t have a choice in the matter.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t read the article, so I don’t know exactly what the author was saying. If it is what I think it is, then, no, it isn’t contradictory. The following is the example I bet the author had in mind:</p>

<p>If the justice system is to be truly just, then people need to have control over their actions. So it is prudent for people to believe in free will in order to maintain society, even if it isn’t really true.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>What? That’s very contradictory. Your acting as if people have a choice and that you can influence their choice.</p>