Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Do we have free will? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Incorrect JohnPaul, it is not a "fact about reality" that we don't have free will. If you are claiming that it's a fact then you need to provide solid evidence against the existence of free will, something which you have failed to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no solid evidence, the idea it really comes down to, is whether you believe the mind to be a physical part of the body, or if you believe in a soul detached and independent, if you believe in the mind as a physical part of the body, then it is difficult to argue for free will, because in that case thinking and reasoning is limited to a physical process, a biological process that would be out of your control. However if you do argue for the existence of the soul, it becomes easier to argue for free will as well, even with the existence of the soul you can still argue for the lack of free will, because even the soul may be affected pre determinately by various "soul causes and effects", the same way a body would.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Incorrect JohnPaul, it is not a "fact about reality" that we don't have free will. If you are claiming that it's a fact then you need to provide solid evidence against the existence of free will, something which you have failed to do.
    I never said that free will is definitely not a fact of reality, I said that you made a factual claim, it's a factual claim because it's a claim concerning reality. I present a well reasoned argument to prove free will and illusion an I get there via determinism. The onus is on you because it is your claim that we do have free will, you haven't present any argument nor even criticised my argument. I don't think I have failed, but prove to me how I have failed, don't just say I have. Philosophy 101.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I never said that free will is definitely not a fact of reality, I said that you made a factual claim, it's a factual claim because it's a claim concerning reality. I present a well reasoned argument to prove free will and illusion an I get there via determinism. The onus is on you because it is your claim that we do have free will, you haven't present any argument nor even criticised my argument. I don't think I have failed, but prove to me how I have failed, for just say I have. Philosophy 101.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I didn't really make a claim. In my first post I simply said "yeah we do" for ease of posting and not having to go into a long winded answer. In my next reply which I quoted you I did say that it was something I believed and not an objective claim I was making.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I didn't really make a claim. In my first post I simply said "yeah we do" for ease of posting and not having to go into a long winded answer. In my next reply which I quoted you I did say that it was something I believed and not an objective claim I was making.
    And like I said, it is still a claim because it's a proposition you think is true, wether you have good reason to think its true or it's mere belief. You can say it's not a claim but it is clearly a question of the human brain, it trespasses on the territory of science overtly. A creationist believes the earth 6,000 years old but would you ever say that this belief is not subject to the opinion of evolutionary biologists/geologists? I suspect and hope not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The concept of "free will" is an ideal that isn't possible if the universe is governed by the laws of physics IMO. There is no little white light within our brains altering our thoughts without itself being altered. But the human mind (and by extension, human interaction) is so volatile and complex, that it doesn't really matter. What's more important is being aware of the consequences of your actions, and practice self-control and delayed gratification so you're not a product of your instincts or your immediate environment.

    It's not like we can say "free will is an illusion" and relinquish personal responsibility. Choice is still relevant as a physical phenomenon- and we must choose what betters ourselves and our environment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and anyone who says otherwise is talking about something completely different to what most people think when they answer this question, of course the will is constrained by certain factors (i.e biology, society) that doesn't mean you can't go against it though. Also the whole deterministic universe thing seems completely bull to me, it presumes we know more about the universe then we actually do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Neuro-)
    The concept of "free will" is an ideal that isn't possible if the universe is governed by the laws of physics IMO. There is no little white light within our brains altering our thoughts without itself being altered. But the human mind (and by extension, human interaction) is so volatile and complex, that it doesn't really matter. What's more important is being aware of the consequences of your actions, and practice self-control and delayed gratification so you're not a product of your instincts or your immediate environment.

    It's not like we can say "free will is an illusion" and relinquish personal responsibility. Choice is still relevant as a physical phenomenon- and we must choose what betters ourselves and our environment.
    You are a product of your immediate instincts, everything in the present moment is causing you to go down one path rather than the other. The admission that there's no free will means there's no control at all, let alone self-control. Choice, control, will, it's all an illusion but it doesn't mean you have to treat life or people in this reductionistic manner, the fact that things are caused does not mean that there is nothing or no one person to be responsible. Earthquakes are caused but you wouldn't not blame the earthquake for killing loads of people? And even if the responsibility problem was even a problem, it's no reason to deny the truth of determinism.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No it isn't still a claim JohnPaul. There's a difference between saying you believe something and claiming it is objectively true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    No it isn't still a claim JohnPaul. There's a difference between saying you believe something and claiming it is objectively true.
    It is an inherent claim. You are not claiming it to be objectively true but there IS an objective truth to that belief, wether we have knowledge of this is a different matter. I used the creationist in the previous posts as an example.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    It is an inherent claim. You are not claiming it to be objectively true but there IS an objective truth to that belief, wether we have knowledge of this is a different matter. I used the creationist in the previous posts as an example.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It isn't an inherent claim! No, I don't even know what you're trying to say now. How can a statement which is not objectively true have an objective truth? It does not and never did I claim it did.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Freedom is an illusion of the human mind. Our will is essentially an ongoing set of falling dominoes where one thing determines the next. All previous experiences and ideas shape future experiences and ideas. To have free will, we would have to say that nothing is affecting our judgment - but that is impossible. There is always something affecting our judgment; it's just a matter of universal causation.
    The universe is not deterministic.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Namige)
    The universe is not deterministic.
    Are you going to qualify that claim?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It isn't an inherent claim! No, I don't even know what you're trying to say now. How can a statement which is not objectively true have an objective truth? It does not and never did I claim it did.
    Obviously not. Do you even know what you're saying? Of course there is an answer therefore truth to be known about all claims and all questions, wether you see them as factual claims or claims of faith is irrelevant it makes no difference to the core truth. What was JFK thinking the moment he got shot? No one knows this and you could say 'I believe he was thinking about the randomness of it the shot, this isn't an objective claim this is a matter of belief/faith' etc. but would you seriously suggest that there ISNT an answer to this question? That there's no objectivity to this? As I said, I should hope not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reluire)
    Are you going to qualify that claim?
    Yes. Quantum mechanics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Namige)
    Yes. Quantum mechanics.
    If you're referring to the uncertainty principle (quantum indeterminacy) then you're incorrect and have misunderstood the use of the term 'indeterminacy' regarding quantum physics.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Obviously not. Do you even know what you're saying? Of course there is an answer therefore truth to be known about all claims and all questions, wether you see them as factual claims or claims of faith is irrelevant it makes no difference to the core truth. What was JFK thinking the moment he got shot? No one knows this and you could say 'I believe he was thinking about the randomness of it the shot, this isn't an objective claim this is a matter of belief/faith' etc. but would you seriously suggest that there ISNT an answer to this question? That there's no objectivity to this? As I said, I should hope not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never said there wasn't an objective answer to the general question, but someone's belief does not equate to making an objective claim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I never said there wasn't an objective answer to the general question, but someone's belief does not equate to making an objective claim.
    I didn't say it equates but any belief entails an underlying objectivity fact or false answer to it. Beliefs means to think that something is true wether you know for sure it's not true or if you don't know.

    This is a belief about reality, and reality consists of an objective truth. All beliefs entail a question or claim to what it is you believe to be true. The belief does not require the believers permission for it to be classed as a question or claim that can be revealed by science.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    If you're referring to the uncertainty principle (quantum indeterminacy) then you're incorrect and have misunderstood the use of the term 'indeterminacy' regarding quantum physics.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Explain the misunderstanding, please.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Namige)
    Explain the misunderstanding, please.
    Well I'm not a physicist but what the 'indeterminacy' means is that your measurement of the system is random and you cannot determine the outcome. The roll of a dice is one example, the outcome is 'uncertain' but there is still a build up of cause and effect. The laws are deterministic but your measurement of the system is indeterministic.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.