I need a proof for free will.

[Gracchus]

It would seem Paul didn't believe in free will:

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

-- KJV Romans 7:19

So there it is, literalists. Free will doesn't exist. The Bible says so.

 

[levi501]

God is my witness that this is the case.

then present your witness or retract your statements.

 

[bt_st_At]

All I want is a proof for free will. Please provide me a logical proof of free will and the existence of an omniscient being (where omniscient means "having all knowledge"). I don't need you to make the proof, just provide it.

Freewill is evident in every situation...You have a choice always to do one thing or another. I however believe in a system where freewill and destined futures work together.

As for the Omniscient being. I think it depends on what you believe. If you believe thoughts can be energy with energy floating around like that there can possibly be an entire conciousness of strictly everyones thoughts....There is more faith in this then there can be proof, we are finite thinking people and it is hard for us to grasp such a concept of something so infinite

 

[Gracchus]

People always make the choice they want most. They have to. They cannot choose what they don't want most. They may be choosing something unpleasant, but there are always reasons that they do so.

Some people believe in free will. They have to.

 

[mikenet2006]

Free will is no more a theory than saying water is essential in the formation of life.

We all have choices and its clear that each of us has the potential to make life changing decisions.



Ask yourselves theses questions

Are our actions and choices affected by external experiences? the answer to that is an obvious yes

Do genetics play a role in the choices we make as individuals? The answer to that is yes also

Do these two facts mean that we have no control over our lives whatsoever, labeling us as drones that only behave as they are destine to? Absolutely not

There is a third factor and thats conciseness itself. Or the human soul if your religious.

Our body and our gene makeup are in a sense the tools that we are given to see the world, and only then do we start to react. We experience things like pain and hunger. Eventually we figure ways to avoid these hardships as much as possible, and everybody uses a different approach. This results in a world full of people whom are all different, and there is your proof for free will right there. Its the variations you see around you, mind you these variations in personalities across the globe only exist because we in fact were all able to make choices as we pleased.

If there were no free will we would all be very similar and this world would be very dull.

Also think about how not all people born in drug filled streets that are full of crime turn out to be failures. Environment is an added factor that can lower or increase your odds of having a personality that reflects that environment but not a determining factor. In cases having it rough from an early age can actually make you a stronger person. It just depends on the decisions you make.

Free will makes sense from both a scientific standpoint as well as a religious standpoint.


This is what the opposition has a tendency to claim.

We are born part of a system of necessity where one will act as they have to in order to survive. Get hungry, eat food. Get thirsty, drink water. bla bla bla

It is true that there is an order to things but the whole point is being missed with this type of mind set. The truth is in the details.

Get hungry, eat food. Well that is true but the way Sara gets that food will likely vary from how Bob does. This supports free will because we all have the freedom to decide the best way to get to our goals in life. Some make bad decisions and some make good decisions. If there were no free will we would all act by default and do things the same, And there you have it proof for free will.

 

[bt_st_At]

Free will is no more a theory than saying water is essential in the formation of life.

We all have choices and its clear that each of us has the potential to make life changing decisions.



Ask yourselves theses questions

Are our actions and choices affected by external experiences? the answer to that is an obvious yes

Do genetics play a role in the choices we make as individuals? The answer to that is yes also

Do these two facts mean that we have no control over our lives whatsoever, labeling us as drones that only behave as they are destine to? Absolutely not

There is a third factor and thats conciseness itself. Or the human soul if your religious.

Our body and our gene makeup are in a sense the tools that we are given to see the world, and only then do we start to react. We experience things like pain and hunger. Eventually we figure ways to avoid these hardships as much as possible, and everybody uses a different approach. This results in a world full of people whom are all different, and there is your proof for free will right there. Its the variations you see around you, mind you these variations in personalities across the globe only exist because we in fact were all able to make choices as we pleased.

If there were no free will we would all be very similar and this world would be very dull.

Also think about how not all people born in drug filled streets that are full of crime turn out to be failures. Environment is an added factor that can lower or increase your odds of having a personality that reflects that environment but not a determining factor. In cases having it rough from an early age can actually make you a stronger person. It just depends on the decisions you make.

Free will makes sense from both a scientific standpoint as well as a religious standpoint.


This is what the opposition has a tendency to claim.

We are born part of a system of necessity where one will act as they have to in order to survive. Get hungry, eat food. Get thirsty, drink water. bla bla bla

It is true that there is an order to things but the whole point is being missed with this type of mind set. The truth is in the details.

Get hungry, eat food. Well that is true but the way Sara gets that food will likely vary from how Bob does. This supports free will because we all have the freedom to decide the best way to get to our goals in life. Some make bad decisions and some make good decisions. If there were no free will we would all act by default and do things the same, And there you have it proof for free will.

Mike makes a good point.

However that doesn't negate the fact that people aren't meant to become certain things in life such as president or a mass murderer.

I believe in freewill but also in having a destined future that is unavoidable in which we have NO CHOICE but to end up in... This would also pertain to experiences we go through, being raped as a child (whether or not we struggle doesn't mean it didn't/ or won't happen), experiencing a life changing miracle. These things are meant to happen to us for a reason freewill has no place in these scenarios

having a predestined future doesn't mean you don't have any choice but somethings ARE unavoidable

 

[elman]

People always make the choice they want most. They have to. They cannot choose what they don't want most. They may be choosing something unpleasant, but there are always reasons that they do so.

Some people believe in free will. They have to.

No it is just not true. We sometimes make the choice we do for the benefit of someone else and not ourselves. That is the love and it is a choice.

 

[elman]

These two descriptions are not contradicting each other.

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

You are incorrect. You may be a robot driven only by chemistry, but I am a thinking being.

These two descriptions are not contradicting each other.

The definition of a thinking being is not the definition of a robot and vice versa.

 

[Gracchus]

No it is just not true. We sometimes make the choice we do for the benefit of someone else and not ourselves. That is the love and it is a choice.

But you have chosen what you wanted most. You can make up reasons. The fact remains. What you have chosen is what you must have chosen because of who you are and the circumstances of your choice. If you had wanted to make some other choice more, that is what you would have chosen. You choose self-sacrifice because you want to more than you want self-interest. You want to think well of your self, so you make noble choices.

Now think about it. It is not a trick.

 

[mikenet2006]

But you have chosen what you wanted most. You can make up reasons. The fact remains. What you have chosen is what you must have chosen because of who you are and the circumstances of your choice. If you had wanted to make some other choice more, that is what you would have chosen. You choose self-sacrifice because you want to more than you want self-interest. You want to think well of your self, so you make noble choices.

Now think about it. It is not a trick.

Originally Posted by: Gracchus

Some people believe in free will. They have to.


Thats an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. If you choose to believe in free will its apparently because you were exercising the definition of the word itself, not because you had to.

To be or not to be, or to choose or not to choose. You are free to do as you please and thats what it boils down to.

If the argument here is that free will is some sort of illusion based on the fact that we only act because our senses, gene's, or our brain tell us to, thats just irrational.

Of course we act as our bodies and minds tell us at any given moment. However does this disprove free will? Absolutely not

So lets go deeper, What is your brain a part of?

Obviously its a part of the person whom it is physically attached to. So if its the main benefactor in the decision making process this says nothing against free will.

All it says is that each part of your body takes on a special role to make you who you are. The brain handles the decisions but it is a part of you, therefore you are still making decisions regardless.

Unless of course you sold your brain on ebay. Biology and the human psyche can not be viewed as two independent things. They are connected.

To prove this one cant exist without the other unless of course you are in a coma, sleeping, or dead am I right? This is rather interesting as well because during this separation of body and mind you in fact no longer have free will. When you are sleeping you cant tell yourself when to wake up. If your in a coma you cant do s**t. Your basically under full control of your body and will come to your senses when your body is ready, and if your dead your dead.

The fact that you can choose to do things that are unpleasant, as you even stated yourself, also supports free will in that unlike when your in a coma you can now actually do things that the physical part of you would not find pleasant or optimal for progress.

The only place I'm going with all this is to show that more often than not the ideas that are supposed to render the idea of free will false, or part of an illusion more often than not are facts that actually support it.

 

[Gracchus]

Some people believe in free will. They have to.

Thats an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. If you choose to believe in free will its apparently because you were exercising the definition of the word itself, not because you had to.

No, it means exactly what says. They don’t choose to believe in free will. I have never been able to choose to believe in anything, I have to go with the evidence. To reject the evidence is an act of self-deception, a delusion. An oxymoron would be: "Some people do not believe in free will. They choose not to."
In any case decisions are not evidence for free will. Computers make decisions. They do not choose what to decide. If you have already chosen to believe in free will, then all the evidence points to free will. If not, not.
The problematic word is "free". There was a whole chapter on free will in my freshman philosophy book. Free will cannot be demonstrated to exist. Neither can it be demonstrated not to exist. Don’t fret, mikenet2006. Smarter men than us have grappled with the question, and come away humbled.

 

[mikenet2006]

No, it means exactly what says. They don’t choose to believe in free will. I have never been able to choose to believe in anything, I have to go with the evidence. To reject the evidence is an act of self-deception, a delusion. An oxymoron would be: "Some people do not believe in free will. They choose not to."
In any case decisions are not evidence for free will. Computers make decisions. They do not choose what to decide. If you have already chosen to believe in free will, then all the evidence points to free will. If not, not.
The problematic word is "free". There was a whole chapter on free will in my freshman philosophy book. Free will cannot be demonstrated to exist. Neither can it be demonstrated not to exist. Don’t fret, mikenet2006. Smarter men than us have grappled with the question, and come away humbled.

I can tell you now that there are in fact many smart people that wright books but don't get it right. I guarantee you that for every book that states free will cannot be demonstrated to exist I can find one that states that it can be, actually I wouldn't doubt it if there are more. Many people, scientist included, get it wrong. History is a great demonstration of that, although I do love science and philosophy don't get me wrong.

That idea is just that, an idea but nothing more. A rather silly one at that. I'm willing to bet that the author of that book intended that phrase to mean that it is strictly a subject based on matter of opinion, therefore it cant be scientifically proved. However it also cant be disproved at the same time.

As much as I love science it is a common mistake by many to need scientific proof, or data to come to conclusions. This is not a subject where proof is needed anyway. Free will is evident everywhere, and its obvious.

In the big scheme of things this planet and our universe in fact have a set path that cant be changed. We all die, and solar systems burn out. Its the way it is. So yes this makes it easy for one to see that we are a part of a system that has a fate that is fixed. Therefore we as part of that system should reflect it being its inhabitants.

There is nothing but fate in the big picture because no matter what we do we all end up dust. No matter what we do to this planet, it to will perish. However under it all lies the fact that you have moderate control over how you live while you're here. So you have the freedom not to change your inevitable fate but rather to decide how you live your life.

Note I said moderate control because there are factors that will limit you, depending on your gene's and environment.

I do know one thing for certain, computers do not make decisions, they make calculations. This can be read in books as well. A computer follows commands therefore has no decisions to make.

Even the most advanced Artificial Intelligence designed to mimic human beings follows a program and would change its behavior if you wanted it to, without hesitation. However if I tell you to change your behavior you may or may not decide to do so, and there is the free will so many people speak of.
When a computer seems to act on its own it is known as a computer error that can always be traced back to a software flaw, or human error. So computers do not have decisions to make.

 

[Gottservant]

I like free will because it means I'm free. If I wasn't free I wouldn't have this much said (to prove that the only way you can call a person like me "determined" is to lie and say that I am lying when I say I can say this being free).

 

[Received]

It's impossible to prove freedom; freedom rests on the idea of something transcending the deterministic system on which things typically run. This something must necessarily be beyond the physical that constitutes the elements within this system of interaction. Religious people call it spiritualism; atheists, who put it into words, call it vitalism. Given that there is no empirical way to verify such transphysical stuff, there is thus no way to verify that freedom exists; nevertheless, to believe that one's standards suffice in holding down all truth is an argument with a faulty conclusion.

 

[Received]

Oh, uh, what Gracchus said. I'm awkward.

 

[Gracchus]

I can tell you now that there are in fact many smart people that wright books but don't get it right.

Many of them do use spell-checkers.

I guarantee you that for every book that states free will cannot be demonstrated to exist I can find one that states that it can be, actually I wouldn't doubt it if there are more.

Philosophy is not about the number of books addressing an issue. It is about the quality of the thought brought to bear.

Many people, scientist included, get it wrong.

Science and philosophy are two different fields. You can be terrific at one and lousy at the other.

History is a great demonstration of that, although I do love science and philosophy don't get me wrong.

History is a few carefully chosen facts held together by a pack of lies. It has little or nothing to do with either science or philosophy.

That idea is just that, an idea but nothing more.

Uhh… Philosophy is all about ideas and nothing more.

A rather silly one at that.

In philosophy one does not dismiss an idea as silly until one has examined it and understood it.

I'm willing to bet that the author of that book intended that phrase to mean that it is strictly a subject based on matter of opinion, therefore it cant be scientifically proved. However it also cant be disproved at the same time.

On the subject of Free Will/Determinism, there were actually ten different articles by ten different philosophers in the book I referenced.

As much as I love science it is a common mistake by many to need scientific proof, or data to come to conclusions. This is not a subject where proof is needed anyway. Free will is evident everywhere, and its obvious.

It may be obvious to you.

In the big scheme of things this planet and our universe in fact have a set path that cant be changed.

If it is merely a matter of scale, where is the cut-off?

We all die, and solar systems burn out. Its the way it is. So yes this makes it easy for one to see that we are a part of a system that has a fate that is fixed. Therefore we as part of that system should reflect it being its inhabitants.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

There is nothing but fate in the big picture because no matter what we do we all end up dust. No matter what we do to this planet, it to will perish. However under it all lies the fact that you have moderate control over how you live while you're here. So you have the freedom not to change your inevitable fate but rather to decide how you live your life.

Well, we could wander off into epistemology, which is that branch of philosophy that examines how we know what we know, but that is off topic.

Note I said moderate control because there are factors that will limit you, depending on your gene's and environment.

John Stuart Mill had this to say: “[SIZE=-1]Correctly conceived, the doctrine called Philosophical Necessity is simply this: that, g[/SIZE]iven the motives which are present to an individual’s mind, and given likewise the character and disposition of the individual, the manner in which he will act might be might be unerringly inferred; that if we knew the person thoroughly, and knew all the inducements which are acting upon him, we could foretell his conduct with as much certainty as we can predict any physical event.
… No one who believed that he knew thoroughly the circumstances of any case, and the character of the different persons concerned, would hesitate to foretell how all of them would act. Whatever degree of doubt he may in fact feel, arises from the uncertainty whether he really knows the circumstances, or the character of some one or other of the persons, with the degree of accuracy required; but by no means from thinking that if he did know these things, there could be any uncertainty what the conduct would be.”

I do know one thing for certain, computers do not make decisions, they make calculations. This can be read in books as well. A computer follows commands therefore has no decisions to make.

Put into plain language a program might read something like this: Compare register A with register B. If the contents of register A is greater than the than the contents of register B then perform subroutine 1. If the contents of register A is greater than the contents of register B then perform subrouting 2. Otherwise perform subroutine 3. So the computer, following the instructions, makes a decision based on the contents of the registers. It does not make a choice based on free will. One arguing "[SIZE=-1]Philosophical Necessity"[/SIZE] would argue that a human makes decisions in the same way.

Even the most advanced Artificial Intelligence designed to mimic human beings follows a program and would change its behavior if you wanted it to, without hesitation. However if I tell you to change your behavior you may or may not decide to do so, and there is the free will so many people speak of.

To get the computer to change the way it handles decisions I would have to change the program. In order to get you to change the way you handle decisions, I would have to change your programming, not so simple, but by no means impossible.

When a computer seems to act on its own it is known as a computer error that can always be traced back to a software flaw, or human error.

Hardware faults are uncommon these days but they do happen.

So computers do not have decisions to make.

If computers could not make decisions, if they could not change their output to reflect changing input, they would be far less usefull than they are.

Of course there is always a reason why a computer performs as it does. Someone arguing "philosophical necessity" would say that there are always reasons that determine how human will act. If you decide to flip a coin, well a computer can generate a random number.

Bear in mind, mikenet2006, that philosophy is a process of examining ideas. We may learn much by this process, even if we are unable to reach conclusions. If you approach philosophy determined that you already know the answer, if you dismiss an unexamined idea as silly, then you will learn little or nothing but the names of philosophers.

 

[elman]

But you have chosen what you wanted most. You can make up reasons. The fact remains. What you have chosen is what you must have chosen because of who you are and the circumstances of your choice. If you had wanted to make some other choice more, that is what you would have chosen. You choose self-sacrifice because you want to more than you want self-interest. You want to think well of your self, so you make noble choices.

Now think about it. It is not a trick.

Now you think about it. I do not have to chose self sacrifice and sometimes I do not chose that. I am not forced to chose self sacifice and it is sometimes not what I want to do, but I chose to do it anyway. At other times it is not what I want to do, and I chose to not do it.

 

[Received]

Determinist: you choose for a reason, thus an infinite regress, thus no choice.
Libertarian: you choose for no reason; to choose is to choose between desire and reason, the immediate and the non-immediate, relevant to whatever situation you are in; not for a specific reason.

Thus the groups are incommensurate when it comes to debate; they cannot prove their differing positions.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Danhalen the creating power (don't refer to it as god as the word has religious conotations and when referring to the creator in whatever sense you understand that, whatever power brought existence to our conscience, religions' ideas of god are warped) has made it so that instilled within all life is the potential to be infinitely good and similarly not good and, if as I believe you connect all life on an equal par with the creating power, there must be a reason for our being here and now.

I do not know but it may be that the reason for our (all life's) being is to prove wether the creating power (as it and all earthly life is the same) is good or not and as such we all have free will and the creating power does not know the future.

Free will exists.

 

[exploring]

There are two things: phenomena and beings that experience them. There is no reason why phenomena must signify actual things, but a being can see patterns in the phenomena. It can invent a system that is coherent with these patterns, saying "lets pretend that I am have a physical body and that there is a computer in front of me. Then when i perform a certain action i might predict that my finger will press a key." This allows us to predict what phenomena will follow what actions.

This is the level of knowledge that we have of the outside world: it is all in our imagination. Maybe it is there, maybe it isn't. Maybe we are part of it, but then, maybe not. We can imagine a system that is coherent with all of our experiences, quantum mechanics and such excluded, whereby experiences like the ones we have occur in a determined universe, and we have the impression of choice, but no real choice. But that is not the same as proving that this is the case. We can also imagine systems where the same experiences occur in a non-determined universe. So there is no way of knowing whether or not our choices are free.

Many people seem to be coming at this problem from the wrong direction, saying "if enough was known about your body, all your actions could be predicted, so your choices are not free." This is wrong because it assumes that we already know that there is an ordered external structure to the world, which we do not know. All we know is that we experience phenomena.

For faceitiousness's sake, imagine this: there is an deterministic outside world, there is a me (a human body is writing at this computer) except that I am not my brain, but an invisible ghost with free will. Noone can detect me, other than through the actions of this body that I control, called Teddy. Throughout Teddy's life, I choose to for Teddy to do exactly the same things that he would have done if his actions were being determined. When teddy dies, his body is examined and someone who believes in determinism says "Yep. looks like everything he did was the same as what i predicted 200 years ago." But at the same time, I can say "it was me all along". Noone can rule a situation like this out.