Are you too self-aware to entertain free will?

[rhorle]

If you are angry about my post, then isn't that anger predicated in your genetic precursors to handle anger as well as your experience of reading the post? You think I'm "Not realizing what you are posting"; that's rich. You don't think I've thought about that a long time ago? This is more circular than you realize. That's why it is a matter of opinion to me. There isn't a definitive answer.

It is still a choice to get angry though. Or are you trying to claim that genetic precursors evolved to feel angry at the question of free will and feelings? And that your post is intentionally created to cause anger?

It is safe to assume that genetic precursors haven't evolved away the choice of response to your post since not every, including yourself, is angry over the topic and we are all genetically similar. It is also safe to assume that your post isn't designed to intentionally cause anger as not everyone has responded the same and doing so would basically be trolling and against the rules.

There is a definitive answer you just are of the opinion to not believe it. If every response is the same then there is no free will. If any response or reaction differs then there is a free will since something cause someone to react or respond differently. What is that concept if not "free will"?

[Linaver]

I think that because definition of free will is so varied that this thread makes little sense to some. You can define free will as choice but then a choice in any instance I can think of is influenced by something so that picking one is more likely than the other. Does having a choice and the ability to pick one of the outcomes define free will or is free will an illusion since while you have a choice you will be influenced to take one route over the other and so it can be argued that it is not free will at all but a pre-determined response that appears to be free will while in reality it is not.

For me free will comes from the inherit fact that no two people are completely identical or can ever be. So the course of action picked is different. If we consider two identical clones with exactly the same life experiences that did not involve each other and gauge their reaction to the same stimuli then what would we find if we run this test for thousands of scenarios thousands of times. This is impossible to test, maybe once we develop a true AI, but even then I do not believe that the outcomes would be 100% the same (although I do expect a huge overlap). There are an immeasurable number of factors that can ever so slightly change an individual to produce a different result. But they are factors, and as factors they could in theory be matched in a perfect world. And still if an omnipotent being had the ability to create and test such a scenario there would still be "ghosts", irregularities in predicted behavior with no apparent reason or purpose, and I believe that to be the essence of free will and "having a soul".

Now can I prove this? Of course not, sure you can have studies on twins etc etc and formulate a theory but we are way too limited and lack the capacity to ever state it as a fact. More than anything I find that I want to believe in free will in whatever form because it gives order to the meaning of our existence. No matter how chaotic a society is it always had SOME form of order, even brutal pillaging tribes had a hierarchy and barbaric resemblance of laws. In that sense I believe free will, or at the very least belief in free will, is an inherit necessity that creates order and allows for the very existence of a consciousness self aware being. And as such whether it truly exists is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is that we must believe it exists in order to be something as opposed to nothing - a machine with pre-determined set of instructions.

[The Ogdru Jahad]

It is a deterministic universe, that is all.

[Ryve]

Fixed that for added confirmation bias.

Fixed that, for "this thread is meaningless, OP believes he has no control of his own free will, yet is still trying to control the flow of this discussion".

[Callace]

I am pretty sure I know everything there is to know about the world

I hope you were being sarcastic. I'm not being nearly that arrogant. I deliberately structured this so that it would be a matter of opinion.

---------- Post added 2012-06-23 at 04:02 AM ----------

Fixed that, for "this thread is meaningless, OP believes he has no control of his own free will, yet is still trying to control the flow of this discussion".

Semantics, blah blah blah. Just look at the poll results. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to my opinion.

[rhorle]

I hope you were being sarcastic. I'm not being nearly that arrogant. I deliberately structured this so that it would be a matter of opinion.

---------- Post added 2012-06-23 at 04:02 AM ----------


Semantics, blah blah blah. Just look at the poll results. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to my opinion.

Doesn't that mean that this thread and your question is redundant? If you deliberately structured it so it would be a matter of opinion then you set up the poll to answer it self. As people responding the way they want is free will.

[Callace]

Doesn't that mean that this thread and your question is redundant? If you deliberately structured it so it would be a matter of opinion then you set up the poll to answer it self. As people responding the way they want is free will.

You're oversimplifying. People will choose whether they identify with the first option or the second option. That is all I'm interested in. Whether or not they believe that choice to be solely the product of other factors or the product of free will/ choice for its own sake is up to them.

---------- Post added 2012-06-23 at 04:22 AM ----------

I caught that potato comment before you deleted it, blanks. In my response, rodents and wild boars also like potatoes, they contain nutrients that are essential to them.

[Tziva]

I never claimed they were. I simply want you to answer the question.

You're presenting it as an either/or option and demanding people pick one or the other. That sure implies they're mutually exclusive, and it makes anyone who feels the matter is more complex then A vs. B can't simply answer the question.

[Callace]

You're presenting it as an either/or option and demanding people pick one or the other. That sure implies they're mutually exclusive, and it makes anyone who feels the matter is more complex then A vs. B can't simply answer the question.

Well, yeah, I mean, it's just a poll. It isn't meant to be perfect. If you can't answer, you don't have to.

[Ryve]

Semantics, blah blah blah. Just look at the poll results. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to my opinion.

When did I claim to be entitled to your opinion? I said that your opinion is blatantly obvious, and this thread is not about a reasonable discussion, so much as ramming it down people's throats. Which means it has no place on an open internet discussion forum.

[Callace]

When did I claim to be entitled to your opinion? I said that your opinion is blatantly obvious, and this thread is not about a reasonable discussion, so much as ramming it down people's throats. Which means it has no place on an open internet discussion forum.

You're dictating to me? I'm asking for opinions. I'm sorry if the poll results hurt your feelings.

You are welcome to start your own thread. Please stop derailing mine.

[Ryve]

You're dictating to me? I'm asking for opinions. I'm sorry if the poll results hurt your feelings.

You are welcome to start your own thread. Please stop derailing mine.

So please tell me, how do either of the statements in your poll prove or disprove free will, or even the belief in it? As it is, the poll results mean nothing. I'm sorry if you have tried to convince yourself otherwise.

[Callace]

So please tell me, how do either of the statements in your poll prove or disprove free will, or even the belief in it? As it is, the poll results mean nothing. I'm sorry if you have tried to convince yourself otherwise.

I'm not proving or disproving anything. That is your platform. Stop creating strawmen. I'm asking people for their opinion on the subject. I don't hold any definitive answers. I've said that ad nauseum. There isn't an objective answer. That's why people are free to express their opinions in this poll.

[StationaryHawk]

We're free to do as we choose, but bodily whatever-and-whichever and surrounding influences heavily influence specific decisions.

[tjanson]

I'm not proving or disproving anything. That is your platform. Stop creating strawmen. I'm asking people for their opinion on the subject. I don't hold any definitive answers. I've said that ad nauseum. There isn't an objective answer. That's why people are free to express their opinions in this poll.

*chuckles.* You can deny it as much as you like, I suppose. The thread title and the way you've worded the poll make your opinions rather obvious. Not saying you're right or wrong, but trying to construe the situation as if you're just "looking for answers/opinions" is a bit ridiculous.

[Callace]

*chuckles.* You can deny it as much as you like, I suppose. The thread title and the way you've worded the poll make your opinions rather obvious. Not saying you're right or wrong, but trying to construe the situation as if you're just "looking for answers/opinions" is a bit ridiculous.

Present me a "less biased" set of poll options then.

[Ryve]

I'm not proving or disproving anything. That is your platform. Stop creating strawmen. I'm asking people for their opinion on the subject. I don't hold any definitive answers. I've said that ad nauseum. There isn't an objective answer. That's why people are free to express their opinions in this poll.

I'm aware you're not proving or disproving anything. As already stated, the entire notion of this thread is self-indulgent. What opinions are you trying to gain from the two poll questions? The fact that your nervous system reacts to external stimulus is science. However, if you're suggesting it proves free will is fallacy, that would mean someone who was subject to complete paralysis was capable of having free will - pity they have no mobility, and are either entirely reliant on external actions to maintain them, or will die very quickly. And then the notion of choosing what you feel... It is entirely possible to completely block out feelings and effectively shut off your senses if you have sufficient control of your body... Yet that doesn't prove anything either.

Your poll options could just as soon be "I like tacos", and "tacos leave me bloated". No, I take that back, those two statements are probably more relevant to the proposed topic. Yet still, the fact that you like tacos does not mean they do not leave you bloated, and the fact that they leave you bloated does not mean you do not like them.

[Callace]

I'm aware you're not proving or disproving anything. As already stated, the entire notion of this thread is self-indulgent. What opinions are you trying to gain from the two poll questions? The fact that your nervous system reacts to external stimulus is science. However, if you're suggesting it proves free will is fallacy, that would mean someone who was subject to complete paralysis was capable of having free will - pity they have no mobility, and are either entirely reliant on external actions to maintain them, or will die very quickly. And then the notion of choosing what you feel... It is entirely possible to completely block out feelings and effectively shut off your senses if you have sufficient control of your body... Yet that doesn't prove anything either.

Your poll options could just as soon be "I like tacos", and "tacos leave me bloated". No, I take that back, those two statements are probably more relevant to the proposed topic. Yet still, the fact that you like tacos does not mean they do not leave you bloated, and the fact that they leave you bloated does not mean you do not like them.

Like I said, I'm not interested in debating anything. If you think my poll options are biased, then give me an example of less biased options. I still want the same opposition in the opinion breakdown.

[rhorle]

Like I said, I'm not interested in debating anything. If you think my poll options are biased, then give me an example of less biased options. I still want the same opposition in the opinion breakdown.

What is the point of the poll if you want the same opinion break down? I'll go with that since I don't even know why you want people to oppose a breakdown of opinions. The two options for your pull aren't mutually exclusive so you can have both at the same time. I can choose what I feel while my nervous system is based on my genetics and experiences.

An unbiased poll would be a simple question with a simple answer. Like: Are instinctual response free will? Yes or no?

[Ryve]

Like I said, I'm not interested in debating anything. If you think my poll options are biased, then give me an example of less biased options. I still want the same opposition in the opinion breakdown.

Your poll questions are not just biased, they don't demonstrate particular belief in either school of thought.

How about "I believe in free will" and "I do not believe in free will"?