@Mike403 there is a difference between a hypothesis and a guess in that a hypothesis has corroborative evidence to support the claim. Both a guess and a hypothesis can(eventually) be verified through experimentation or logical thought.
After that I am lost, please forgive me. Are we discussing the merits of reincarnation now? I don't understand how that ties into the discussion of freewill.
I think that we have the illusion of free will, just like the construct of time is an illusion as well. It’s my belief that we are ephemeral souls that are only living a physical existence here to learn things or experience something. I feel like we are very limited here and choices are only valuable to the experiences we’re supposed to have.
I don’t have a choice but to believe in free will.
Free will does not mean that we can do anything we want. Our choices are limited to what is in keeping with our nature.
We are also limited by law, social norms, experience, and learned experiences. Also limited by genetics and prior ancestral repeated behavior that may even be coded in our genes.
But yes we have free will.
Wait a minute... is free... will free and will free will free? 🤔
@lesmis33 philosophy isn’t always so concrete. You’re digging into physics pretty hard.
Perception is our reality because it’s all we have. We are incapable of knowing what is true. We’re proven wrong constantly.
Is the definition of free will grounded within our bodies and without it we’re impulse based zombies? OR (expanding a little) Is free will controlled by something larger than us. If we are basically Barbie dolls for a celestial being (no way of knowing) we’d also lack free will but we wouldn’t move based on impulses of this world. We’d be constrained to the rules of the celestial being’s game. So we may be more complex but still puppets.
kinda why “I think therefore I am” has so many holes in it. How do you know that you’re the one thinking?
just like the construct of time is an illusion
No, because time keeps everything from happening all at once.
Some believe we have to know everything to know anything. I don't believe that. We can know some things without knowing everything.
How do you know that you’re the one thinking?
IT thinks for us. There, on IT's dais, pulsating, controlling, orchestrating life on Camazotz... that benevolent IT.
Concrete thinking. What is time? We measure it but what is it? I don’t think you have to know everything. I think that what we know can change. It does. Often. We expand and shed what’s no longer useful, relevant, or true. Assuming our reality is the same thing other people experience kinda defeats individuality and autonomy so if there is one truth…couldn’t that suggest the absence of free will?
@stormydaycuddle - Time is an illusion created by the mind according to Albert Einstein. We can change our perception of time by traveling near the speed of light or being near a very strong gravitational field like near a black hole.
@mike403 I was asking txtom since he made the comment that time is what keeps things from happening all at once. I know time is relational to gravity. ☺️☺️☺️
Time is a dimension, measurable in how we perceive it.
Space, a dimension, is the antithesis of a singularity and keeps all matter from a compressed state of infinite density. Likewise, time keeps everything from a similar singularity.
if there is one truth…couldn’t that suggest the absence of free will?
No. Because you're not forced to act in accord with any truth.
@stormydaycuddle you are correct that I am structuring my arguments around hard sciences. This is because I am utilizing the fact that chemistry and physics are non-deterministic from our current understanding. As both of those fields of science play an intricate role in how we perceive our behaviors and consciousness work, I deduce that humans are non-deterministic. Since humans are non-deterministic, they have to have free will.
Now, I do understand my scope of this is limited to the comprehension of humans. I am playing on the basis of the argument that our minds are simple synapses and chemical reactions and are thus not free-willed beings. This is a rather mundane approach from my argument, but I do hope it encapsulates the point from our current comprehension of the world and how our mind works.
With a celestial puppeteer in play, we are discussing forces that we are not truly aware of in that we can, of course, theorize it, but we can not perceive or measure it. We quickly devolve into the super natural and it truly speaks volume of our mental capacities as a species. We are able to conceptualize entities and systems that do not exist in our perceivable space and time. We then utilize these conceptions to further expand our understanding of the perceivable world around us. Granted the theories that provide the most utility to us is generally the one we as a race support, but it really doesn't prove if something is "right" or "wrong." So there could be two truths to the same issue: @stormydaycuddle is controlled by some star being and @lesmis33 is a flesh bag of non-deterministic reactions. In this sense, we can invoke Nietzsche's perspectivism and state "there are no facts, only interpretations."
The problem with science is that it puts everything into a magnifying glass (or a framework) in order to make it accessible to study the thing. Then it makes global assumptions based on this tiny speck of information that was also exposed to human error.
@lesmis33 I believe it is a logical fallacy to assume we are moving in a direction of progress. Sure, I get how it looks that way from our modern perspective and we’ve also been spoon-fed the narrative. However, things that used to be scientific fact have been disproven AND things that used to be seen as nonesense have become widely accepted (such as a round earth). This is a perpetual cycle rather than a linear process.
The truth is, with logic it’s also the perspective you look at things from. If you put a limited amount of information into a framework, what you prove is wholly dependent on what you put in there. And what a materialist scientific perspective doesn’t account for is that not everything can be put in there.
***You can’t simplify complexity in order to study it, and then make bold assumptions about complexity *** This is the flaw of our science tool , which nowadays seems to be worshipped akin to a religion. Again, the map is not the territory.
It seems arrogant and self-aggrandizing to assume humanity and our technology is fundamentally any better than it has been at literally every other stage in history including very recent history.
For a long list of examples and to add some opposing information into this framework of looking at the world, I would recommend the book titled “the half life of facts”
Also @lesmis33 I do appreciate the way you debate with curiosity and it’s always nice having opposing perspectives to debate over ☺️
Also, Neitzsche is a fucking genius
I should correct some misconceptions about science (specifically chemistry and physics). They are not non-deterministic on the macro scale The mathematics that predict the movement of celestial bodies, the motion of objects, optics, etc. are very well known and mostly accurate to a miniscule degree of error. It's only on the quantum level that things appear non-deterministic. In the quantum realm (not the Ant-Man one), statistics and probability reign supreme. It may be that at this level chaos theory takes over (for those who don't know, chaos theory is the idea that small perturbations at the beginning that are too small to measure influence the system later - basically the "butterfly" effect"). But these perturbations themselves may be completely random rather than determined by some other physical principle. Even radioactive decay, which appear totally random (there's currently no model that can predict exactly when a specific radioactive atom will decay, only a statistical model to predict the behavior of an ensemble) might have some underlying reason for why a specific atom decays at a specific time. Mathematically, our models dictate that certain things have a measure of uncertainty (see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). And despite that the mathematical models are ridiculously accurate in predicting quantum phenomena, we have no idea WHY it follows these models. But at the macroscopic level we can predict exactly when and where events occur, and do know why.
Getting back to free will, I've always looked at it as having free will, but constrained by various parameters. I may have the free will to fly without the aid of mechanical assistance, but physics (at least as far as we know) constrains us to walking on the ground. Similarly, brain chemistry might constrain or dictate certain behaviors and desires, but there are some that don't think are constrained or dictated - that is free the free will.
@lesmis33 philosophy and science do not always jive. Choosing to use constraints to think is a choice. A great choice when you’re in traffic and need to turn left. Less of a great choice when pondering the meaning of higher concepts. You limit yourself to the ground. Funny you mention Nietzsche. Twilight of the Idols is one of my favorite philosophy books. In it he talks about knocking down what was old and considered true by those that came before him. Aristotle, Socrates etc. I love Post Modernity which many consider him the father of. Some think he’s a nihilist but that’s not true. He’s pretty much my favorite philosopher. I’m with Cami. You’re always fun to talk to. 🤗🤗
I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity. Fredrick Nietzsche
@CamiCuddle 100% wish you were closer. I’d totally want to grab coffee. 😂🤗
@Vocalist100 🤗🤗🤗 we will never truly know what comes after an event horizon until we get there.
@txtom are you sure about that? You’re not constrained by time?
Measurable in how we perceive it.
Since your definition is different than mine and I have ADHD I’m going to conclude that our perception isn’t the same. Time gives the perception of no singularity but then there’s things like an event horizon.
Gravity makes liars of us all. 😂😂😂 (sorry thought of that twist and couldn’t help it)
“Time makes liars of us all” is so relevant to this I'm 😂😂😂cracking up.
I understand the concept of free will being an illusion, but I just can't accept that. There are too many nuances to our every choice and action for me to believe that, without consciousness, we'd automatically do the same things. I guess that with more understanding of what consciousness actually is, we'd come to understand more about what "free will" is.
People born in “red” states are much more likely to vote red, same with blue states. People born in France most likely use French as their primary language - children of educated parents are more likely to grow up educated, bad circumstances tend to cause good people to do bad things. People with certain mental conditions are prone to acting in different ways. Seems like there is always a reason for people acting or choosing the things they choose
@CamiCuddle 💯 There's only so much that can be explained through the use of the 5 senses. Science can't explain how a person knows that they're being stared at or hunted, or why pple die suddenly after the death of a spouse or retirement . At least the last part is not observable via the 5 senses. I think science is an important tool to help humans reach an understanding of truth, so I wouldn't throw it out but I would keep it as one of the many tools to understand the world ahd ourselves.
Oh jeez, I kinda blanked out when it got to parts about physics, dimensions and chemistry. Good for everyone who understands it tho! 😊 I wish I did!
Free will, however is more like what @michael8219 described. Yes, we absolutely have it ...but it's limited to what we are able to do with the constraints we have around us. And nothing really to do with thoughts or impulses.
One can be an Olympic swimmer but has to contend with things like genetics, physical characteristics and even physics! Just like what we choose to eat is limited by what's available to us, and what we have the knowledge, ingredients or energy to cook.
Impulses, feelings and thoughts are not what free will is. And also uncontrollable impulses are highly rare and usually limited to those with very severe special needs (involving severe brain injury or impairments) and/or babies. Because even my daughter with mid-range Autism and other special needs has been able to (slowly) learn how to control her impulsive thoughts. Even crimes committed in the heat of passion are not even genuine "loss of free will", but the law makes exceptions for rare cases since it's impossible to fully know.
One thing that I think makes the biggest difference in our understanding of free will is what each person is aware of about themselves and about their abilities and or choices. Some people don't understand that they have more choices than they do have and that causes a lot of people to not take responsibility for their own actions....the belief that actions (or behavior) and thought/feelings are the same things. But they aren't.
I knew someone who said "that's just what I do (ie how I behave) when I'm mad," acting as if he didn't have a choice but to behave a certain way when he felt angry at someone.
@RedFox16 Kinda goes by to my causality belief comment. People who believe what happens in their lives is because someone else did something to them or put them there. Its not accepting responsibility. I HATE it when people use the word responsibility solely synonymous with blame. Taking responsibility is freeing. It gives us autonomy. Ah, the nuances of what free will is.
To another comment made by someone else. I'm not sure free will and free reign/ being all powerful are exactly the same... having power over others actions is a little different and harder to take credit for. So I don't think what's imposed on us by some restrictions quite count. So we can't levitate or choose whether or not we get sick (genetic diseases come to mind here) but as I mentioned before there's so many questions left unanswered. So outside forces can still act upon us. Also, if anyone knows how to levitate let me know. I would really like to reach the top shelves of my cabinets.
Don't worry folks. I'll be here all day with paradoxes. Actually, I really hope I won't be. I need to get a healthier hobby like scrolling social media for hours or impulse buying.
I always enjoyed this debate in philosophy of religion class 😁 For me, the reasonings behind people's answers is always more fascinating and important than the actual answer.
@BoomerSpooner I'm in your camp of believing it's not an either-or question. I believe our history, personality, environment, etc. will limit what choices are available... but that there is always still a choice. Sometimes the choice is just action vs inaction, but it's still a choice. And science backs this concept in other areas: take for example epigenetics, where yes, our DNA determines how our bodies are built and developed, but life and environment and so many other factors impact which genes are expressed at different times. Free will is like the Schrodinger's Cat of choices... Until the moment the choice is made, multiple options are simultaneously true and possible.
To answer the original question, yes.
@TheMidnightOwl 👍
@OhioMike 🤭 Perfect GIF. And glad you and Spock agree.
@TheMidnightOwl 😂. Glad to see you here ! 😊
This is a pretty interesting topic, and a pretty old one at that. It's called fatalism vs. determinism. And you will find people's answers are so varied on it, religious and non-religious. I love it.
Are we free to choose our own path in life? Or is the idea of having "options" merely an illusion? Are we simply robots programmed to seek things out according to our brain chemistry? Or are we more than that? Does god determine our path in life? Or do we choose it for ourself?
An interesting argument I heard is that destiny and free will aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, our choices in life run parallel to our own destinies. It's kind of a unique perspective that opts to choose both as the answer.
One way I like to picture this is to imagine fate as being an archer shooting an arrow at us. The way we react to this arrow is our own free will. We can try to dodge the arrow. We can accept the arrow as inevitably going to strike us. We can try to catch the arrow, etc. Our options may be very limited here, the outcome may be inevitable, and the arrow may be outside of our control. But we still have the ability to act to this event according to how we choose. This is free will
Basically, fate is everything that happens to us. Free will is found in how we choose to react.