But there is no need to. My statement is that the result of the coin toss is governed by very real, constantly observed laws and patterns in the universe. It’s not like it was placed in a random number generator and a new one popped up. It is not truly random in that sense, and that is the sense that matters here.
Don’t really know what Nash equillibrium is.
Granted, though, the complexity of an algorithm doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that it should be disregarded. I ask a rigid question: concerning free will, does it or does it not exist? In the sense that I mean free will, the mere existence of an algorithm outside of your control that governs your entire life, no matter how complex it is, is proof of its absence.
But, as I have said, even your actions are governed by environmental factors. Did you have control over them? To what extent?
I never really even expressed interest in documenting all factors that make up all the occurrences around my life because it’s irrelevant. And how does it then follow that human beings have free will because we can not fully document or comprehend all factors involved?
Except these laws also constantly change in unpredictable ways, scientists can’t say the exact speed and time an electron is going to dart so they sure as hell can’t pull up the exact same scenario.
You are describing a Laplace demon and refusing to accept the fact you are, anything with the knowledge of quantum-molecular recreation isn’t human.
If an unreachable equation determined your life does that mean you don’t have free will? What’s to say it’s not free will? Who’s to show me that equation? Who’s to show actual proof I don’t have free will other than saying anything influenced by something else doesn’t have free will?
You have full control over your actions no matter if you’re brainwashed under opioid and brain dead. You’re still controlling yourself with all these possible influences, even if how you control yourself is predictable.
It means you have minimal to no control over the outcome. This is what I refer to when I say I have no free will. Hell, I’d go so far as to say that the individual that you refer to as “you” was not chosen by yourself, and so any decisions made by them are made due to the specific bits of information that make up “you”, and thus not truly freely chosen.
This is why I say free will doesn’t exist.
As for the bit on proof, I personally can not even comprehend the existence of true free will. It doesn’t make sense. I did not have any control over the instantiation of the human being called myself. I might be aware of my mental space, but I did not control its existence, nor do I control how it grows and develops. I simply live in the results, but have such self awareness and such a capacity for interpreting the data that I collect that I feel as though I do have some control over it.
In the first place, what am I referring to when I say “I” in this case?
Some odd shit might happen where the result of my brain’s configuration is that I take an action, which causes me to make an experience which then changes my brain’s configuration. This is more of a domino’s effect than anything though, the way I see it.
My thoughts, actions, and image of myself are the result of the way this mental scape changes over time.
It’s not that I’m contending whether or whether not your consciousness made these decisions. I’m contending that you even have any control of your consciousness. If you have any control over the individual that is “you”. If this is not the case, then any more complex case that is precedented on you having control over “you” can not be the case.
That’s a bad definition as you have all the control in the world, influences are just that, influences. I define free will as being able to follow what you identify as, whether or not the things you indemnify as we’re influenced is irrelevant.
I’m personally atheistic so I believe that I am my consciousness so I can’t really say I believe in souls or something that controls our consciousness.
I mean you still can control yourself, you just are so under influence that things such as moving, blinking, etc. simply can’t appear in your head at all, you might only think of black but I still think that black would be free will as long as you believe it to be.
Who’s to say simply existing isn’t a testament to free will?
Same. I don’t really believe in souls, but I DO believe that consciousness is a brain activity. It is not that something else like a soul is manipulating my consciousness, but that I am not doing so, either. My consciousness is a result of that brain activity, not underneath it.
It’s simply an activity.
You haven’t really proven that you have all the control in the world though, and that influences are simply influences. Do you have control over the literal configuration of your mind? Not even your thoughts, since those are activities of the brain, as is your consciousness. I mean the activity creator. Do you have control over it?
That can not be set aside as a mere influence.
You assume that the phrases “think of” and “believe” apply to the brain dead. There is brain activity going on, but who’s to say that the consciousness they experience is even complete? Computers can run information and give back data, even really simple ones.
I’d say this is similar to those who assume that the blind see black since they can not comprehend the act of not taking in visual information of any kind. We only know our own consciousness, so it is natural to assume everything else is at least somewhat similar. This just seems to be human egocentric behavior at play, though.
This is a really cool video I watched a while back. The domino computer in it can certainly take in information and release new data. Does it have free will? Does will even apply to it?
This seems more arbitrary a definition than the one I proposed. Do you mean the ability to be somewhat aware of your own identity? How is consciousness distinct from free will, then? Under your definition, are they synonymous?
Or by “being able to follow…” do you mean adhere? If so, then once something begins to follow what it defines as “self”, it has free will. But does the act of defining the self require free will? If so, then this would be circular:
Free will starts once one is able to follow what they identify as, and in order to identify as something, one requires free will.
If I’m making any errors here, feel free to say so.
If creating an identity requires free will, but free will occurs when one can adhere to this identity, then free will never emerges, as the prerequisites are never met. There is never a point in time where an identity is created without free will, and free will requires an identity to already exist, under this assumption.
You’ll notice that I assume you mean that free will starts immediately after one starts being able to follow their identity. This is non-consequential though. If there is some delay, then how severely does this delay impact the identity? Since free will hasn’t emerged then yet, then this was obviously not a result of their free will. If it basically doesn’t do anything, then nothing changes. If it does do something, then that’s one more thing that bends the shape of their identity which they were powerless against.
Or does the act of creating an identity not require free will under your definition? Is the act of creating an identity automatic, while everything following it is done freely? Then what do you mean by “being able”? Does one have the ability to choose not to do so? Isn’t the adherence to one’s identity automatic in this case?
Since the initial identity they have does not require free will and indeed predates it, they did not will themselves to have it. You make use of the word “follow”, which suggests that they adhere to this initial identity after they have gained free will. As they make decisions with their free will, this changes and controls their identity, and the decisions they make are either random or systematic. Either way doesn’t really matter, as it still removes agency from the person involved.
The rest is just a kind of domino effect. Actions are taken due to their identity, and these actions shape their identity, causing them to take more actions to shape their identity. Since this is a real person, though, we know that environmental factors also have a big role to play in shaping one’s identity.
There are two relevant types of environmental factors that are relevant here: those brought about by the person’s choices, and those that are not. Regardless of which it is, it still shapes their identity even further, but in the former it is basically impossible for one to say they willed themselves in that scenario. In the latter one could say this, but their will, as the former paragraph specifies, is a result of the shape of their initial identity, something which they never chose.
This loop goes on and on until the person dies. They take in information, this information changes them, they make decisions as a result of said change, they are affected by the change, causing them to take in information… and so on and so forth. Nothing resembling any agency here.
Of course, consciousness serves to give us the illusion of true choice. The choice we have is the most shallow it can be. Even assuming the choices we make are unpredictable, it still doesn’t prove free will. In fact, it renders the situation even worse. Consciousness itself is an activity of the brain; it’s a complex result of the way in which our species takes in information and what we do with it. It’s a pretty useful tool.
So I would say it’s an automatic process. What else could it be? My existence has always felt automatic anyway. It’s not like I’m being manually controlled by anything, or that the way I am was shaped by some inner, immutable “me”. If the first were the case, then I’d be a puppet, and if the latter were the case, then this immutable self would be more akin to a soul than anything, and since it is immutable, then it could not possibly have willed itself into that state, for that would make it mutable.
What else is consciousness but automatic? I could turn it off by sleeping or dying, but that’s as far as I can control. After dying, I cease to exist, and so it’s not even much of a freedom. And even though I opted out of life, from the above paragraphs, that wouldn’t even be a decision made with true free will.
Look, do you really care? It’s not like some big ol’ deity is forcing you to live a life you don’t enjoy (unless you’re depressed, in which case, I understand), who tf cares about morals? Even if you don’t feel like doing good, someone will stop you from committing acts of violence and criminal activity. Just enjoy life for what it is, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems in the world. Just don’t overthink things, because if you overthink every single tiny thing, decision, person, question, Etc. You will end up more insane and unhappy than you started. Trust me, I’ve been down this road multiple times. Stop while you still have some aspect of belief.
And even if you are a puppet with strings attached. At least there’s the illusion of free will, which is better than outright totalitarianism.
Easier said than done, of course. It’s not like I haven’t tried to stop thinking too hard or something. I have just accepted it as my nature.
The assumption here though is that there being no true free will would causes me misery. Whether I’m right or I am wrong, nothing significant truly changes. There is no real reason for alarm.
Not quite sure if that’s true, though. In the case of consciousness, totalitarianism would be akin to just not being able to even have the illusion of free will. In other words, a lack of consciousness.
The way I see it, that’s infinitely better than being born with the instinctual command to furiously guard one’s own life, and then being told that you have to give it up eventually anyway.
And I don’t really care if I were better off not thinking about things like this as often. Forcing myself to stop thinking about it seems to me like just running away from the inevitable. I want a complete understanding of my position in the universe before I die. I feel as though I will not be satisfied with myself otherwise.
TL:DR I don’t think it’s as easy to just stop thinking about something as you put it. Especially when literally everything around you reminds you of it.
I don’t think all things are predetermined. Coin flips are (contrary to popular belief) not entirely fair, as the side that was up before the coin was flipped is likely to be the side that would also land heads up, and things like mass and gravity can also determine a lot of things. So yes, lots of things are influenced, but lots of things aren’t, particularly in the case of dice. A standard cubed six-sided die is probably fair as it has even sides and equal weight, and can be rolled from fair angles. Dice are a great example, but there’s probably lots more.
But no, it’s likely not all things ARE predetermined, considering these factors.
no it does not, everything right or wrong is determined by rules. you cant just strip and eat bark, people will mark you as ‘feral’ and lock you up (even though that was literally humans a few thousand years ago)
but back then there were even rules too (most likely)
even animals follow their guildlines
no, free will does not exist
