Want your mind messed with? Watch this!

[Noomz]

I found this video earlier and I thought I'd share it with you.
It's about free will and quite enlightening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=ZU05XZ4_jtk#!

[Grizzly Willy]

I'll have to watch this later, but I already don't believe in freewill or moral responsibility.

And I'm taking a course on the topic of freewill at my university.

[Noomz]

I'll have to watch this later, but I already don't believe in freewill or moral responsibility.

And I'm taking a course on the topic of freewill at my university.

It's an amazingly fun subject when you get good people to talk about it with. But a conclussion that is taken in this video, is that free will is infact an illusion.

[Grizzly Willy]

It's an amazingly fun subject when you get good people to talk about it with. But a conclussion that is taken in this video, is that free will is infact an illusion.

That's part of the reason I decided to help restart the philosophy club at school. Philosophy is best when you have others who are interested in it to discuss it with.

[Creotor]

Yea, yea, there's no free will. Who cares. Thinking about that is useless, at least to me.

[Dendrek]

I was about to make an argument in favor of the existence of free will, but as I thought about it (and as I started coming up with evidence to support it) I realized that my arguments actually favored the opposite conclusion and that I would have to willfully ignore that interpretation of the evidence in order to continue trying to argue in support of free will.

Can I change the way I react to certain stimuli?

Part of the theory of what it is to have free will is the belief that we can make our own decisions. This implies that even though we may make one decision in a certain situation, we are completely capable of having made a different decision instead in that same situation. If we consider the "situation" we're referring to to be a stimuli (an event that triggers a reaction) -- in fact, that event will have many many stimuli associated with it but for the purposes of this argument, we'll group them all up as a single and unique stimuli -- then according to the theory of free will, we have many choices on how we can react to that situation and that no one reaction is guaranteed to be the one we choose.

Intuitively, we probably know that we can react differently given the same situation because we've all faced certain similar situations repeatedly in our lives and have, in many of those occasions, not reacted the exact same way in each instance. But is this proof of free will? Unfortunately it's not.

Let's take an in-game example that we're probably all familiar with: Dieing to fire. Often when you die to fire it's because you weren't paying attention to the surroundings well enough (or maybe you weren't aware that the fire was even a threat, or you were too focused on other things happening in the fight). I assume most of you are like myself in that you get really pissed off as yourself for making that stupid mistake and you choose to pay closer attention to your surroundings so you can avoid dieing again in a coming attempt. And again, assuming you're like me, you won't die to fire on the next attempt even if it's right on top of you like it was in the last time. And thus we have two situations with the same stimuli where you reacted differently in both, right? You were in the same raid, with all the same players; you were on the same boss fight with all the same boss abilities; and you were standing in the fire. But in the first situation where that happened you died to fire and in the second you moved out. Faced with all of the same stimuli you reacted differently in two separate situations, right? Wrong, unfortunately. You weren't faced with all of the same stimuli. The first attempt where you died was actually affecting the second attempt. Having experienced the first attempt changed the way you thought about the fight and changed the way you reacted to it.

You might be thinking right now, "Yeah, the first attempt changed the way I reacted to the fire, but that's only because I chose to criticize myself for dieing the first time and I chose to pay closer attention. So my choices are what caused me to play better on the second attempt." Yeah, I suppose you can say you "chose" to change how you reacted, but I'm not sure it was really a choice. When you fail at something that you know you shouldn't have, are you usually the type of person who criticizes him/herself for your mistake and tries to change something so that you don't make that mistake again? Chances are you react to your own failures the same way very consistently. Whether you're the type of person who's really hard on yourself, or the type of person who always sees it as someone else's fault, the way you react to those types of situations is very likely very predictable. So you didn't actually make a choice to play better because to make a "choice" implies that you could have chosen to do the opposite -- but given that situation you were guaranteed to make the choice you made. And therefore, the fact you played better on the next attempt was guaranteed to happen (assuming no other stimuli occurred to affect your reaction).

Now you might be thinking, "Well I could have chosen to react differently to my failure. In fact, next time it happens I probably will react differently just to prove a point." If so, you're making that declaration as a reaction to what you just read from me. If you had never read this (or anything like this) you wouldn't have made that decision. This counts as a stimuli that affects all future events which are related to it. But how much of an impact this stimuli has on those events depends on how you'd normally react to this type of stimuli.

[kailtas]

I find the double slit experiment much more mind boggling.

[Well]

Nothing to be confused at tbh.

It's true that I can change a decision you will take abouthiring somebody by giving you a hot or cold beverage (something to drink), but this is not what free will stands for.
People should understand that is natural and expected to be manipulated by EVERY single stimuli that exists.
Free will does not stand for being immune to stimuli; It stands for being able to change your reactions to any stimuli, and that's true. So, for me:

Yes, Free Will does exist and I can even grab her right now!

[Grizzly Willy]

Nothing to be confused at tbh.

It's true that I can change a decision you will take abouthiring somebody by giving you a hot or cold beverage (something to drink), but this is not what free will stands for.
People should understand that is natural and expected to be manipulated by EVERY single stimuli that exists.
Free will does not stand for being immune to stimuli; It stands for being able to change your reactions to any stimuli, and that's true. So, for me:

Yes, Free Will does exist and I can even grab her right now!

You need a better argument. The great thing about hard determinism is that it has the catch-all argument of "it was still affected by external forces." Your desires? Check. Your desire to change your desires? Check. And so on and so forth. You can keep going down until you hit the "deep self," and I would even argue that that is the result of external forces.

Also, if your definition of freewill is to be able to control the way in which you react to stimuli, my response is that your desire to partake a specific reaction is, you guessed it, controlled and altered by external forces.

[Deleted]

Sam Harris ftw! Suggest this video for anyone remotely intrested in the topic =)

[Well]

You need a better argument. The great thing about hard determinism is that it has the catch-all argument of "it was still affected by external forces." Your desires? Check. Your desire to change your desires? Check. And so on and so forth. You can keep going down until you hit the "deep self," and I would even argue that that is the result of external forces.

Also, if your definition of freewill is to be able to control the way in which you react to stimuli, my response is that your desire to hold a partake a specific reaction is, you guessed it, controlled and altered by external forces.

I think that you've misjudged humans as a mechanism. Humans are designed to function in a social enviroment of nearly endless scenarios and kinds. If you get to say what free will is, you will be fooling yourself if you try to take that aspect of a human (the social one), out of the picture. In the social aspect also remember that even YOU are not one. We have mechanisms that question every single action we take (blushing, guilt etc).

In the end, we are designed to be affected by stimuli. That's the goal. Free Will does not come down to "being affected by external forces" or not. That is something that is 100% sure that will happen. You never decide how "you" will act, but how the social "me" will act, and even get certainly or even fully influenced about how you behave when alone by your social "me" behaviours.

I never said that free will means that you don't get to be affected by stimuli (I stated the exactly opposite :P). It's expected and within the picture.
If you think that free will is when you act, while no other stimuli are affecting you, even except the more or less liquid that one might have on his/her brain, then I don't think that you will find any, in anyone.

Think that:
What is there to decide that does not get affected by ANY kind of stimuli?

Since the answer is nothing, then I think that what you may be calling free will is something too "philosophical"? At least, non-existant as stated above :P


EDIT: Forgot to mention, that in the end, you do not want to control all of your reactions towards every stimuli. You want to control what behaviours matter to you, as "me".

[Aristeia]

I definitely don't think free will is an illusion. Many things that we do are definitely subconscious and have nothing to do with free will, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Deciding which car to purchase is an exercise in free will, choosing what shirt to wear in the morning is an exercise in free will.

[Deleted]

then I think that what you may be calling free will is something too "philosophical"?

Whut? The question of free will falls into the realm of philosophy by default. (even if based on scientific understanding)

[Dendrek]

Deciding which car to purchase is an exercise in free will, choosing what shirt to wear in the morning is an exercise in free will.

Those are interesting examples. The decision making process that goes into either one is extremely complicated (for some people more so than for others). You will likely internally and very rapidly go over several pros and cons related to the available options, at the end of which you will come to a decision. Many of the stimuli that affect this decision are asynchronous to it -- your decision will be based on many events and observations that have occurred to you in the past. But regardless of whatever choice you make, is it possible you could have made a different one given all the exact same stimuli? Regardless of which answer you and I believe, it would be impossible for us to prove it. The best I can do is give you a thought experiment to help you see the rationality of my opinion.

In order for your choice to be an exercise of free will, it must be possible that given the exact same circumstances you would have made the other decision if given the chance to reset time to that exact same event. It's important that you no knowledge of that event has already occurred and that no changes are made at all to the stimuli affecting it. In other words, if I had the ability to reset time (to go back 10 minutes into the past) and while you were busy picking which shirt you would wear, if I reset time after you made your decision would you ever make the other choice? Or would you always end up making the same choice. If you always make the same choice then it means you were guaranteed to make that choice given the stimuli affecting that event. If you ever (even once) make a different choice given all the same stimuli, then you do indeed have free will.

[Theodon]

I remember reading about de-ja-vu and the possible cause, and it does fit in with the first portion of that video that explains how your brain decides what to do before the person thinks he has actually decided. Sometimes that ordering gets swapped around and you get that feeling of de-ja-vu.

To take the example of getting dressed in the morning; you have to get ready as you can't walk around naked, so you open your wardrobe and look what's inside. How do you pick clothing? you choose what makes you look good because you need others to think you look good in that clothing, so that would be an event model influencing your choices. What constitutes "looking good" depends on your experiences with people you socialize with. I think that is what the video is getting at in terms of influence on something you may consider free will.

[Well]

Whut? The question of free will falls into the realm of philosophy by default. (even if based on scientific understanding)

Excuse me there. I meant philosophical in a bad way. Philosophy may have its uses, but thinking of something that does or cannot exist is in no way constructive and has nothing to actually discuss.

Besides, we are talking about how free will exists and not how people define it through philosophy.

And no, free will is indeed a subject thoroughly researched in the psychology domain :P



P.S. I am Greek, you can't mess with me in philosophy <3

[Deleted]

In order for your choice to be an exercise of free will, it must be possible that given the exact same circumstances you would have made the other decision if given the chance to reset time to that exact same event. It's important that you no knowledge of that event has already occurred and that no changes are made at all to the stimuli affecting it. In other words, if I had the ability to reset time (to go back 10 minutes into the past) and while you were busy picking which shirt you would wear, if I reset time after you made your decision would you ever make the other choice?

What you describe is not a free will, but random choice, since you mean a person with free will would make different decision in same situation. That is not what a free will is. Free will of human is a state of humans mind where he accepts that a done actions was done by own choice. It doesn't matter whatsoever if your brain obey strickt physical laws and would always repeat it's response.
Similar example: Lets say you have a movement freedom and can move all around the world. But then someone has decided to kill you, before you leave your city. If you don't know it and don't want to move by your own choice, you consider yourself free and if someone would ask you in 50 years, if you were free, you would answer: yes. But if you know it, you will not feel free and consider you imprisoned in your city.
There are other discussions in science about "freedom of choice", but they are actually about whole different things, now about this philosophy. What they research is how exactly this mechanisms works, what part of decision is done by your consciousness and what without it, brain activities by making decision, influence of different factors on your decisions etc.

Ok now the funniest part, since we know quantum mechnics, we know that physical processes are true random. So if you could reset time, thing would be different, funny but its a fact. So our decision is partially RNG indeed, ofcourse with specific probabilities, not 50:50.

[crica]

I remember reading about de-ja-vu and the possible cause, and it does fit in with the first portion of that video that explains how your brain decides what to do before the person think he's actually decided. Sometimes that ordering gets swapped around and you get that feeling of de-ja-vu.

To take the example of getting dressed in the morning; you have to get ready as you can't walk around naked, so you open your wardrobe and look what's inside. How do you pick clothing? you choose what makes you look good because you need others to think you look good in that clothing, so that would be an event model influencing your choices. What constitutes "looking good" depends on your experiences with people you socialize with. I think that is what the video is getting at in terms of influence on something you may consider free will.

well

i see what you mean about making choices based on stimuli

but ultimately i think choices are based on reasoning out consequences

you pick the blue shirt to wear instead of the red shirt because it is closer to you at the time even though you prefer red over blue personally (the reasoning you had was you were late for work and taking the time to get the red shirt instead would have a worse consequence)

[Zenko]

Sam Harris ftw! Suggest this video for anyone remotely intrested in the topic =)

Oh boy, I love a good philosophical debate! I did watch the entire video but I'm going to have to whole-heartily disagree.

Conditioning of culture and behavior is what drives our will, I believe. Free will is still indeed tangible with respect to this video. I agree that it's not as definite and powerful as most people might believe, but through conditioning yourself you can break free of certain thought patterns (happy vs sad thoughts) of behavioral thinking (eat at the same times of day vs eating whenever). These little actions and decisions come to define your future behaviors and future decisions.

I believe the true answer to the concept of Free Will is directly related to our understanding of time. Meaning, is time linear or non-linear? If it is linear, can the timeline be branched off into other timelines? Does free will affect time? Can free will itself be measurable?

On the other hand, if time is non-linear it can be said that any event that would have occurred, has occurred, and everything is occurring all at once, but our brains perceive it as our 'everyday life'.

I've def gone a bit deeper than I originally intended, so i'll wrap it with this final bit ^^...

I feel that the answer to... well, life, really, lies with our understanding of space-time and how our brains perceive it. Understanding free will requires understanding the universe, /man

[Deleted]

Excuse me there. I meant philosophical in a bad way. Philosophy may have its uses, but thinking of something that does or cannot exist is in no way constructive and has nothing to actually discuss.

Besides, we are talking about how free will exists and not how people define it through philosophy.

And no, free will is indeed a subject thoroughly researched in the psychology domain :P



P.S. I am Greek, you can't mess with me in philosophy <3

1) You misunderstood Grokan. He was not arguing for the straw man you put up.

2) As I said, the question falls in the realm of philosophy. (even if based on scientific findings. i.e psychology.)

3) I'm not sure how you can say we are talking about free will, not how we define free will. We can't use words we don't know the meaning of. Moreover, you were first to bring semantics into this.

4) Psychology itself is a product of philosophy. Even today, like every science, a large aspect of it is philosophical, hypothesis', interpretation of data, and such.