blastingas10

There's more to it than just th chemical reactions alone. So the chemical reactions and neurons of others don't become a factor? I'd have to say they do.

To quote an article from psychology today:

"Mechanistically speaking, you could say that although we may not have free will at the level of the neuron, we do have free won’t at the conscious level.

Why? Because consciousness is a mental state, and because free will is a reality in the mentalistic universe of other people’s minds even if it is not in the physical world of the brain. This is why consciousness needs a veto: only consciousness can allow for the mental factor of other people’s possible reactions. Consider a simple scenario: that of a fugitive and his pursuers. The fugitive, by definition, is free—indeed, he is determined to remain free. But the question is: how free? And in what sense is he free?

*
Suppose the pursuers know that the fugitive is likely to resort to location A with the highest probability (his home, say), B with less probability (his family perhaps), or C with less likelihood still (for example, acquaintances), and so on, with decreasing probability for each subsequent suspected place of refuge. If the fugitive thinks for a moment, he immediately realizes that the pursuers will think this. In other words, he becomes conscious of what they might do, and in practice exercises normal mind-reading skills (something which an autistic fugitive might not do at all, or do badly). What this means is that the fugitive instantly sees that, wherever he goes, he is not free to visit A, almost certainly not B, and probably not C either. However, knowing that his pursuers cannot cover all possible refuges at one time, he might decide to go to some very improbable ones, say X, Y, or Z. But there again, he might reflect that, if he is sure his pursuers will foresee that he might think this, he might consider A, B, or C after all on the premise that, since he is expected to go there first, they will not look for him there if they anticipate his reaction to their reaction. Nevertheless, the fugitive cannot rule out his pursuers foreseeing this in its turn and therefore continuing to search for him at A, B, and C—which once again suggests somewhere like X, Y or Z…*

*
Considerations like this show that free will is a reality, but it is one that relates to the mental world of other people, not to the physical world of neurons."

Goofle

Go to sleep or something Tuna. You couldn't ever win this argument.

__________________

midnight rain

Cut the condescending bull****, you have contributed nothing of value to this thread other than insulting people who disagree with you. Right now you just look like a cocksucker.

Blastingas, it may be hard for me to articulate this as it is a philosophical argument so I have trouble wording it. Here are some links though that you may find interesting.

Michael S. Gazzaniga: Free Will Is an Illusion, but You're Still Responsible for Your Actions - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Is Free Will an Illusion?: Scientific American

blastingas10

I'll give 'em read, tuna.

"Imagine a universe in which everything that happens is completely caused by whatever happened before it. So what happened in the beginning of the universe caused what happened next and so on, right up to the present. If John decided to have french fries at lunch one day, this decision, like all others, was caused by what happened before it."

I do agree with this. And I do agree that we don't have free will in the sense that there are only so many choices we can make, although that may be a very large number of choices to be made in a lifetime, those choices are still within the realm of possibilities. So in that sense, there is a limit to our choices and therefore a limit to our freewill. I don't think freewill is infinite or anything like that, but I do believe that it is large enough to make correct calculations and hypotheses A hard thing to accomplish.

midnight rain

Oh and I just wanted to say, since Goofle seems to be under the impression that I'm trying to win an argument, I'm always open to anything you may have about free will existing. This thread wasn't about winning an argument (free will is after all, a philosophical debate), but just to see what others thought about the subject. Thanks for giving your opinion respectfully.

TockTockTock

I believe the term is called "biochemical predestination"... It's much like the concept of the "clockmaker" in deism except there is only a clock... and no maker. Everything is just set into motion...

Basically, in a nutshell, it means that our actions are based upon numerous internal and external variables. When a situation is presented to us, we react accordingly to it based on these variables. If you were to replay a certain event (let say choosing between two different brands of cereal) repeatedly with the same variables intact, then the same outcome would occur each time.

Of course, then there is also the non-biological sense of predestination (don't know the exact word), but that's another debate for another time.

I think it's a really interesting concept. Not entirely sure what to think of it yet, but it's definitely possible.

The Batlord

This. I simply don't understand how, in a universe where everything is mathematically calculable, free will just happens to exist. The concept of free will just seems like magic to me. Any concept of free will that doesn't include magic or divine power just seems like semantics designed to redefine a word that no longer has any real meaning. If you believe that the universe is deterministic, then just come up with a different word to describe human choice, because "free will" already has a specific cultural meaning and using it only brings confusion.

__________________

midnight rain

I think a good example would be music. A lot of people don't like country, but to say someone chose to not like country music is ridiculous. You can't choose to like or not like country, you just do like it or don't like it. I challenge people who don't like country music to explain why they don't like it.

Another example would be food, you don't choose to dislike a certain type of food, it just doesn't appeal to your taste buds.

blastingas10

My first comment may have seemed a little Disrespectful because of my choice of vocabulary and phrasing, but it wasn't intended to be that way if you took it like that, but I don't think you did. I just wanted to make that clear because you are one of the most respectful members here, in my opinion. So, I try to remain respectful when I talk to you, you've been respectful to me.

Now back to the topic.

midnight rain

I admit I haven't research much about parallel universes, but the only way they can exist is if free will does in fact exist, no? Because the idea of a parallel universe is that you had an alternate choice in the first place you could've made that would allow you to alter your destination.

Thanks man, though I admit I could've kept my cool a bit better earlier.

I wasn't offended by what you said because you were actually substantiating what you were saying and providing an interesting perspective.