@lonelytauros - Because people still need to be removed from society (or this website) to protect others. The lack of free will can't be used as an excuse.
@lonelytauros because that's the rules the celestial toddler imposed on us while playing make believe. Brain chemicals DO affect the way people behave. Its natural laws or laws imposed by society to keep a standard of living which I'd say points to a lack of free will.
If I'm bothering you I'll leave. At this point I'm playing devil's advocate which may be agitating. I should be doing other things anyway.
@Mike403 why not? If you’re saying, a person has no control over the physical reactions that they do because of the chemical responses in their brain, how can that be their fault ? Or on the other hand, you are saying that we do have free will and that we make bad choices and that we need to be accountable for it which one is it?
@lonelytauros - What do you do with a defective appliance? You throw it in the trash. The same with people who commit murders or other serious crimes.
@stormydaycuddle you are not bothering me. I should’ve just left my Rush Freewill song and not engaged in the thread. lol 😂
@Mike403 for the record I have no quarrel with you at all or with anybody else, but I’m just gonna disengage myself from the thread. Making a freewill choice to do so.
I agree with @lonelytauros. @Mike403 “every thought we have”…we have a choice when we have a thought. We choose what to do, just what the thought is does not make us do it. It’s a choice.
Chemical imbalance. If someone has a sugar addiction/sugar sensitivity. (See the book Potatoes not Prozac.) If someone has this and they eat sugar/sweeteners, or white flour, it gives them an imbalance. It can make them anxious and depressed. Yes, they choose to eat it, but they also can choose how to act after they have had it. Say it makes them less patient, they can still choose to be patient, even inside of them they feel less patient. Both are a choice.
@CuddleHugs01234 - but there are many things going on in our brain that we don't quite understand. We have have the thought to have some sugar but then recall a portion of memory of why you shouldn't and then change that thought. It's way more complex that that that I can't describe.
Philosophers have been grappling with this question since, well, since there have been philosophers, and there is still no evidence either way. Just like any philosophical endeavor, the rabbit hole seems to have infinite depth.
@lonelytauros , saying that if we didn't have free will i we would eat the first thing that comes along is more an assumption. Certain foods might stimulate certain areas of the brain (be it pleasure centers, memory, or whatever), and the brain then "chooses" the food that best replicates that stimulus (it is known that chocolate stimulates the production of endorphins, seratonin and a host of other chemcials). Perhaps the brain, like an additiction, craves the endorphins associated with lasagna one day, then steak the next, etc.
And saying, why prosecute criminals, well, we have a vested interest in society to reduce such behavior based on a better functioning society. Of course, one might ask, why do we desire a better functioning society? Again, rabbit holes. Answering the question one way pretty much opens up a multitude of other questions.
Ultimately, I think how a person answers this question is greatly dependent upon their view of the origin of identity and the self. If it's all just brain chemistry, then they probably think that free will is an illusion and the universe is deterministic. Physics certainly supports determinism - that is until you delve into quantum mechanics, where everything on the quantum level is based on the principle of superposition of more than one possibility. And a quantum state only becomes a single reality once the particle is observed. So maybe "choice" operates in a similar manner. I want both steak and lasgna (and lobster, and a host of other dinners) until I actually "choose" one over the other, and then it becomes a reality. OTOH, a person who believes the source of identity is what people commonly call a soul probably believes in free will. Note that this doesn't mean that whether a person does or doesn't believe in free will dictates whether or not they believe in a soul (dictate - yet another rabbit hole).
Whether we have free will or not, I personally "choose" (loaded word, I know) to believe and I operate as if we do have free will.
Haven't read all the comments but love the topic! This was discussed on YouTube by Robert Sapolosky and I really enjoyed his deep dive! Throwing that out there in case anyone wants to nerd out on some science 💖
@Vocalist100 great explanation. The way it was being presented seemed (to me) to assume that no free will would make us single celled amebas or zombies.
I suppose what the definition of 'free will' is affects how you're looking at it.
Even if it were determined that free will did not exist, it seems like it does, from my perspective. The experience of having free will is what matters to me.
One could say that it is impossible to know if anything truly exists, as every experience is a result of perception by the senses and brain. One could be a brain in a jar, experiencing everything through a simulation. Even if this were true, it makes no difference to me as my perspective is the same either way.
Now, based on the many NDEs - Near Death Experiences - I am aware of, it seems likely that what we are is independent of the material that we call a brain and body. It is more likely that matter is a product of consciousness and not the other way around.
@stormydaycuddle great points. I would add that I think self is also an illusion. Our ego grasps onto it the same way it grasps onto the illusion of free will.
Lack of free will implies we are deterministic systems since there should exist a system of measurements which can always determine what a person will do/think/behave/etc. Chemistry and Physics have been proven to be non-deterministic which is why we use percentages and probabilities for our calculations. Thus, the systems that govern our thought processes are non-deterministic meaning biologically speaking humans can't be deterministic. Since humans are non-deterministic, they must have free will.
@lesmis33 I must disagree with you. Chemistry and physics are mere tools to understand the world around us. When using tools like chemistry & physics it’s important to remember: the map is not the territory.
@CamiCuddle oh, absolutely. We’re all delusional. It’s the nature of not understanding absolutely everything.
Edit: paradigm shifts are a thing. Which I think says a lot. Even if you’re physically here you’re in a world of perception.
@stormydaycuddle "free will over ourselves or the universe? Free will = Omnipotent?"
I'd think true free will would be us being able to say choose to never get sick or harmed by others or the environment. Though I suppose there's some level or types of choices or 'free will' that exists. So one might say it exists to some extent.
@CamiCuddle Hmmm, interesting, but I am rather lost. Are you inferring that our understanding of physics/chemistry might be flawed or that physics/chemistry could never be used to determine free will of a human being or that our conceptualization of the world around us through physics/chemistry is limited to our own capacity and thus can't be used to derive an absolute statement on the matter of free will or something else entirely?
@lesmis33 - Everything that humans have thought of is flawed. Not even Einstein was correct 100% of the time. The complexity of the universe and everything around us is far beyond what the human mind can comprehend.
@lesmis33 they are measures we use to understand the world but given that we are limited beings and our understanding is always changing its ultimately a construct. We believe we know how something works right up until something new is discovered. Medicine is an easy example. We no longer use leeches in medicine. Miasma theory (unfortunately) is untrue according to our modern understanding. We have cures people centuries ago couldn't even imagine. To think we are any different now is kinda saying this is the end right here there will be no more progress. So assuming that there's more we don't understand... yes, there are flaws everywhere.
@Mike403 while I do agree there exist things that are beyond our human comprehension, I don't know if I would agree the concept and physical attributes of ourselves is beyond that. We are fully conscious beings and are thus aware of our nature. Since we are aware, we can study and learn about it.
I am surprised that so many see it as an either-or answer.
I think that the brain is like a machine - you put in a bunch of inputs (stimuli, your memories, cravings, mood etc) then out come the outputs (turn the steering wheel, go for a hug, eat that cheesecake you didn’t want to eat)
@BoomerSpooner I'm all about arguing both sides right now. Philosophy = my thing. I've gotten sucked into this like a bug to a zapper.
@stormydaycuddle hmmmm, I am afraid I don't fully understand your implications here. Are you suggesting that since previous systems were flawed and eventually improved upon, that our current systems should be considered flawed in their entirety?
If that is the case, I would posit that we, as a species, are iteratively improving upon our understanding of the universe with better and better systems. Leeches and blood letting became dialysis machines. Alchemy became Chemistry. Newtonian physics became this jumbled mess of disjoint and conflicting theories as we search for some unifying equation between quantum and astrological. The system improves in the grand timeline, or it has done just that thus far. I don't believe we have figured everything out, but our understanding of the world and universe around us today is far greater than the understanding the human race had even 50 years ago.
If that is not the case, then I apologize for arguing with myself and request further clarification.
@lesmis33 a lot has evolved and a lot has fallen off completely. So I'm not sure evolution of subjects quite sums it up.
Edit: scientific 'theory' is the admission that there may be more or the understanding may shift entirely. We made the ruler. Calculations are a human construct we use to understand things and yet we still don't. I'm not saying there isn't a universal standard at any one given time.
I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed.
@lesmis33 - Things that can't be scientifically tested are just guesses. Nobody really knows how the really happened. The big bang theory was an educated guess due to the expansion of the universe being observed. For all we know, the universe always existed, consciousness is a shared fundamental part of the universe which is interface by the physical brains. When we die, we revert to what it was like before we were born and eventually become conscious again in another body (without any memories or personalities of past lives since our brain will be different)
@stormydaycuddle I too love philosophical quandaries and the discussions that unfold around them. Obnoxiously so, I must admit.
Edit: Responding to your edit. I agree calculations and science are human constructs that we use to communicate and understand the world around us. Through this understanding, we are able to draw conclusions and show them empirically. They are not absolute truths but tools for conveying our understanding to one another in an increasingly unbiased manner as the scientific theory seeks to perpetually remove bias (or variables) through each iteration of tests. Therefore, one can conclude that as of our current understanding of the physical world around us is expressed in the notions of science. The entirety of our understanding is definitely not flawless, but that doesn't mean our understanding is innately flawed.
Also, the new body you are born into might not even be on Earth. There is so much we don't know including if there is intelligent life all over the universe.