Freewill: A Path to Spiritual Evolution

[Entheos]

Some may think we have freewill, and to some extent we do.

Even though there are societal laws stating we cannot do certain things (i.e. murder, rape) that does not prevent us from doing those things. So in that sense we have freewill.

But to me, we do not have true freewill because we are limited by physical reality. For example if I wanted to jump out the window and fly, I cannot because I have to obey the law of gravity.

What is true freewill then?

True freewill is freedom from everything. The laws of society, the laws of physics, even yourself. Think of a dream. In the dreamworld if you want something, and you're dreaming lucidly, you can simply will it to be there. But even the dreamworld is limited because you are bound by what you know, that is if you didn't know something existed you wouldn't be able to use it.

Perhaps God did give us freewill, but its a limited version. Sort of like a trail version. We have freewill within the bounds of physical, mental and spiritual reality. Perhaps this is a hint to something greater, a form of spiritual evolution. Perhaps we are only here to learn about freedom, and what it can bring. Perhaps God wants us to become so free that we separate ourselves from physical, mental and even spiritual reality, in effect creating our own Universe, where the inidividual will become God, and thus create his/her own Universe.

I think that's one of the paths God has provided. And in my mind its one of the highest paths, because it means the ultimate sacriface. The sacriface of literally everything, everyone and everywhere to create a new world in which the soul can flourish.

 

[russ_watters]

The Matrix has you...

Seriously, I have no problem with the fact that my freewill is constrained by the laws of physics/chemistry/etc. I don't think the term really implies anything more. But it is fun to speculate "what if...?"

 

[Entheos]

yes the matrix does have me, except this time when I leave it, I won't be coming back, I will be making my own :)

 

[wuliheron]

Some people believe in consensual reality, that is, that the laws of physics, life, the universe, and everything are what they are because deep down inside everyone agrees that is what they want.

 

[olde drunk]

I agree with wuliheron.

in the omniverse, there is true freewill since it is an open system. in the physical universe, a closed system, we have limited freewill. we agree to the laws of physics to participate in the physical universe. ground rules, as it were.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[omin]

Entheos,

Any quantity of freewill violates the law of conservation of energy. Study physics more, and you'll expire the rest of your belief in freewill as well as the imposed God psychology. It takes rigorous honesty, something some do not have, because of biologically or enviromentally induced mental disorder that separates them from this honest sanity their whole lives.

Simply though, Freewill states an action may occur without a history (or cause), which implies energy is added to the system. If energy is added, it must have a direction and velocity and possibley some sort of mass.

If this is God who added the energy, he didn't give you choice, because he's setting the magnitude and direction of the energy to the system and the system will react because of it's circumstancial position and postitional make-up.

If it's you who added the energy, then how did you determine the energy's magnitude and direction upon yourself, when you didn't have the energy prior? Once you receive the energy, it must have magnitude and direction. If you say no, then only your present state will determine it's direction of the energy, meaning you didn't make a free choice, the choice was determined by the state you were in when this out of no-where, non-velocity energy made it's way mysteriously to you. But, you would have to prove by accounting that your choices added energy to your decision making system. No way! Energy has never been proven to be created or destroyed.

One other thing I found that helps. Many people think they can make a free choice, but what happened is they forgot what influenced them. If they didn't forget, then physical laws dictated what they did choose, even if they claim they knew they were being stupid. We just call that being stupid. Try that logic on the next person claiming stupidity proves free-will. They'll love you for it.

 

[False Prophet]

I think that we already have "true free will". It's "absolute free will" that we don't have. I LOVE that idea of becoming a god of my own universe. That idea is pleasent to think about, and it makes sense too. I hope it's for real!

I wouldn't agree that "freewill is an Illusion" because we know that freewill in the limited sense, bound by the laws of nature, does in fact exist.

 

[Entheos]

Omin

I don't think your definition of freewill is the same as mine. Mine is the ability to make any choice. That is free will to me.

False Prophet

"I wouldn't agree that "freewill is an Illusion" because we know that freewill in the limited sense, bound by the laws of nature, does in fact exist."

And it is that limitation that makes it an illusion. The very nature of free will is to be free to make ANY decision, thus true free will is an illusion, at least here in this reality ;P

 

[Locrian]

I was going to reply to this post, but I lack the free will to do so.

 

[saviourmachine]

Free will is not random will

If it's you who added the energy, then how did you determine the energy's magnitude and direction upon yourself, when you didn't have the energy prior? Once you receive the energy, it must have magnitude and direction.

Yes, I am very interested in this question. By heart I believe that I have a free will, but intellectually I find the case of a will only formed by nature and nurture much stronger.

Randomness, indeterminism - I think you are right in that omin, that's why I did quote you - doesn't solve the problem, because in that case you would have random will, not (directed) free will. I am still searching for (theoretic) "building blocks" of which the function is in some way independent of how the block became constructed as such. Next to that it has to be able to adapt itself, but that is pretty common in technical systems. If people - that believe in some kind of free will - know about some attempts to it, I'm eager to hear about it.

Independence
In the violet book of Einstein meets Magritte, about The evolution of complexity some background information is given. For example Jixuan Hu formulates different kinds of eigen-mechanisms on a complexity scale:

• simple causality
• simple feedback
• Ashby's self organisation (loop within environment)
• Von Foerster's self organisation (loop including environment; the system and its environment are considered as an interactive whole)
• Prigogine's self organistation (dissipative structures but conserving 'information', that contain multiple eigen-loops, mostly observed in chemical processes)
• hypercycles (self organisation in Eigen's sense)
• autopoiesis (the black box isn't defined anymore by it's behaviour but equally by it's being; the eigen-results and eigen-loops become identical; the whole set of complex processes produces itself; a biological approximation of a recursive function)

What do I like in this? IMHO a recursive function is independent. It's a very dynamical form of iindependence course, but that doesn't matter to me.

 

[cyfin]

Freewill pertains only to the mind. You have the will to jump out the window and fly, but you lack the ability. We were given free will to will anything we want. But we were placed in a world of limited abilities and confined to the laws of this world. From this we get the popular phrase "The mind is willing, but the body is weak". What freewill means, at least to me, is that we can think anything we want. There is no force in this world shaping or directing the path of my thoughts. Though it can be argued that outside effects often do shape that, it is only because I allow them. Insane people are a great example of freewill. Some of them think they are birds. Their mind is completely convinced of this. Does that change their physical form into that of a bird? Of course not. Free will is that which we have over animals. When an animal, such as a dog, makes a dicition, its instinct tells it what to do. I am theatened...run away. I am hungy...go eat. I am horny...go have sex. It is because of our free will that we can choose logic over instinct. We have total and complete freedom to think whatever we want.

 

[graffix]

>>It is because of our free will that we can choose logic over instinct.

I think the fact that we use more logic and rely less on basic instints are just effects of having more intelligence, but I am not sure if our free will is that much different than free wills possessed by dogs and animals. Say my dog is sleepy and is yawning, and I offer him to play with him or to feed him. I think the free will to either go to sleep or to take up on my offer should be very similar to the choice I make on whether if I want to go out tonight or stay home. The decision the dog makes is based on how tired he is, how hungry he is and so forth, just like if I am really really feeling like to go out. There are definitely variables there, but a final decision is sort of a toss-up, meaning, to a certain extent, is unpredictable. Is it, then, just a random event that we percieve as free will? Is this really our own, or is it just an experience, similar to our sensation of vision, hearing, etc.? An experience of true randomness?

If you still want to call it your own, I would like to ask another question, can we really think the stuff we want to think about? Say you got fired from your job and you are sitting at home, not wanting to think about it. There is no benefit in thinking about it during the night for nothing can be changed. If we were a program, we would set up a scheduler to think about it starting the next day so we can look for a job to correct the situation. But we know that some how, unwillingly, neurons are randomly firing in our brains, until one of those neurons starts firing in the parts of your brain containing the memories of you getting fired. The next time you are out for a long drive, try to see how long you can keep a subject (that you usually think about) out of your attention.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I like your question, and it raises another one in my mind. Do our actions follow from our immediately prior conscious thoughts? Always? How about "I don't know what I'm going to say until I say it"?

 

[graffix]

>>Do our actions follow from our immediately prior conscious thoughts?

From a biological standpoint I would probably say yes, but it seems like I'm going to get myself in trouble for saying it. Never the less physically speaking our motor reflexes have to first be motivated by neurons triggering in the brain. This applies to what most of us consider actions, ie - eating, going to the store, etc.

>>Always?
Do you have something that's on your mind on this?? What if we consider "observing" to be an action, say for quantum experiments?? Does our mind see what our eyes tells us or does our mind put stuff (collapse wave functions) for our eyes to see??

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's just that people who want to talk about consciousness, free will, the outside world, and all often seem to assume a relationship that is oversimplified. I think it's a common experience to do something (drive a car is often mentioned) without much or any CONSCIOUS intervention at all. And I think that cases like that, along with dreaming and the experience of blind and deaf people from birth, such as Helen keller, ought to be carefully considered before you reach any hard and fast conclusions about these topics.

 

[graffix]

>>ought to be carefully considered before you reach any hard and fast conclusions about these topics.

You're right. I was throwing evidence to support that we don't have free will but there's so many things to consider before really reaching to a conclusion. To be honest I don't really know, and am always listening intently what everyone thinks, and with the same token, just threw in what I thought (at the time I may add!). There's a neurological, biological, psychological, and even a quantum mechanical sides to this question!

>>along with dreaming and the experience of blind and deaf people from birth, such as Helen keller

Please, I am interested to what you may add... My psychology classes took all had different prespective on dreams... and the last one I took said that dreams are "just result of neurons randomly firing"... I was very unsatisfied by this explanation, but ends up today that I am saying, isn't that where all our thoughts come from?

 

[selfAdjoint]

There has been a lot of research on dreams. They certainly are not just random - gee, your own experience tells you that!

One thing I remember from an old SciAm article was that human dreams have a different basis from animal dreams. There was a theory that dreaming was the brain's way of integrating the previous day's experience into long-term memory. And research tended to confirm that was what was happening in animals. But it also showed that something more complex than that was going on with humans.

Research has shown that the brain and its mind ( ;) ) are much more complex and contingent than used to be thought. A good all around reference is in Dennet's Consciousness Explained. If you don't like Dennet's theory you can ignore it. But along the way he provides a valuable survey of modern sensory and brain research.

 

[omin]

Got Cause?

All those fancy shmancy concepts still wouldn't make any sense without the most basic fundamental of all: causality. Get it? Not without out causality. Any thing in this world continues on a path without changing one iota, or stays at rest, unless a forces acts upon it. Freewill implies, something changes course without a cause.

Randomness is ignorance of cause. Randomness is part of the freewill philosophy, so is chaos. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, it's just a human limitation we all are stonewalled by in one way or another. The key thing isn't that we are stonewalled, it's that we don't know we are when we are: Ignorance!

Keep on looking!

 

[saviourmachine]

Independence

Freewill implies, something changes course without a cause.

IMHO - like I already said - free will is a matter of independence of our environment.* I don't know yet how this independence came to be. The complex systems I mentioned can play a big role (and maybe randomness will play a role too).

Randomness as a result
Randomness is at least important in regard to independent systems. If we - human - are partly independent then our environment will observe partly random choices.

Cause
Besides, what are causes exactly? In the case of pointing a video camera to a TV monitor complex patterns will appear on the screen. Is the 'cause' for this behaviour the person that arranges this system? IMHO even if you're able to formulate the 'causes' that resulted in a kind of system, you still don't have to have a causal relationship between the components and their integrated behaviour.
A slightly different point: Is circular causality causal?

*If you look it at this way, physicalist are the ones that have a holistic view of 'us' and 'our environment': "'we' and 'our environment' are totally dependent of each other, there is nothing in us that is independent of it."

 

[olde drunk]

All those fancy shmancy concepts still wouldn't make any sense without the most basic fundamental of all: causality. Get it? Not without out causality. Any thing in this world continues on a path without changing one iota, or stays at rest, unless a forces acts upon it. Freewill implies, something changes course without a cause.

Randomness is ignorance of cause. Randomness is part of the freewill philosophy, so is chaos. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, it's just a human limitation we all are stonewalled by in one way or another. The key thing isn't that we are stonewalled, it's that we don't know we are when we are: Ignorance!

Keep on looking!

say hello to a charter member of the unwashed-ignorant club.

you are taking the laws of physics (rules for the physical world) and applying them to the entire universe that includes the non-physical.

today, we can list all the elements, chemicals, etc of any simple organism. we suspect that IF you pass the correct elctra-magnetic charge through this mixture life would result. Why can't we do it?

To me, the life force, much like an idea has no causation because it is non-physical. we probably are a form of that electro-magnetic energy. but we can not understand the nature of the universe and our existence by using laws that apply to the physical world.

IMHO, we are here in this physical world learning to use our freewill on a limited basis, before being let loose with complete freewill in other dimensions.

loveNpeace,
olde drunk

 

[graffix]

I'm overwhelmed trying to find what everybody means exactly!

>>The key thing isn't that we are stonewalled, it's that we don't know we are when we are: Ignorance!
So what you are saying is that we perpetually move from a state of ignorance (ie not knowing what the next minute holds us) to experiencing/knowing (since the next moment = the cause and effect of what I'm going to decide). BTW I am also having a hard time understand what is meant by cause.

>>If we - human - are partly independent then our environment will observe partly random choices.
Can I rephrase to say "if we are partly independent then our environment will become unpredictable since it is the effect of our choices"

The word randomness still seems to have a lot of power here if I interpret correctly. It isn't that we do (crazy) random things or dream random dreams.. It, to me, is buried a lot deeper. This is my theory: Take the decision to either to go to McDonalds or Carl's Jr for lunch for example. The decision making is for the most part all environmental (your preference, your genies, what you've been eating, what parts of your brain are most active[which will seem random since it is built on past random decisions]). The choice can be calculated (using a computer) all the way down to the final answer (you're going to Carl's Jr because absolutely every variable imaginable points you there) as if you were in a sim game, and you're just an AI dude walking around in a simulated city. The difference between you and that AI in the sim game is that, before committing, the screen asks, Goto Carl's? ACCEPT (YES/NO). That's where it's a random decision, and it's always a 50/50 probability (after absolutely everything is said and done), sort of how quantum mechanics probabilities are always 50/50. Please distinguish that it's not 50/50 between McDonald's and Carl's, and it isn't that you will automatically choose McDonalds if you choose NO. That final decision could be what is INDEPENDENT from the system, and according to Many Worlds Interpretation, walks you into one of many possible worlds.

Are we in a simulation?
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html

 

[omin]

Independence
IMHO - like I already said - free will is a matter of independence of our environment.* I don't know yet how this independence came to be.

Yeah, you don't know. Cause all you do know is based upon cause. Because all that you know has a cause. It's called your environment and your circumstantial internal environment.

You don't know what randomness is, unless you know the order it's out of order, but then you'd know it and it wouldn't be random. Therefore, we can say randomness theory is ignorance.

Independant systems? If they are independant how did you receive the light waves that give you knowledge of their existence. That doesn't sound very independant to me. Certainly forces are interacting between you and them because you've sensed them and become aware of them. You weren't permanetly changed significantly or insignificantly dependent upon what time and coordinate you are destined to view it from.

What are causes? Image you freeze the world as if you stopped time. That is called a inertial state. When you move it one frame, the smallest frame concieveable, this will alllow you to measure how everything moved compared to everything else, from frame to frame. Then you can let it move one more frame and do all the measurements possible. We in general say: the first frame CAUSED the second frame. The second frame CAUSED the third frame. You take this to the level of density in certain areas of the frame and you can get picyuune about it. The environment does move. The environment creates things that are sensed. What you sense arrives as thought. Now you have the mental state that was caused by the enviroment. Thought is the greatest conscious cause known to mankind.

I don't know what holistic is.

There is only one choice ever, because that's all that is chosen and will ever be chosen at one moment in time.

Choice really doesn't mean we aren't determined, it means we watched a change of velocity occur. That's all.

 

[graffix]

>>I don't know what holistic is.

from dictiony.com - Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts: holistic medicine; holistic ecology.

>>the first frame CAUSED the second frame. The second frame CAUSED the third frame.

If you are determinist, are you suggesting that we can predict the fourth using a computer? It's a common understanding among scientists today that it certainly is not the case. I would like to suggest reading about Heisenberg's principle or quantum mechanics. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/Intro.html
Einstein himself could not understand this underlying principle and he wrapped it up as "the hidden variable"

 

[omin]

from dictiony.com - Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts: holistic medicine; holistic ecology.

Yes, gestalt theory sounds like this. I read an artical on consciousness in Scientific America that talk about our speed of perception a little. The brain does processing before it feeds us what we see. For example, two colors were flashed before a humans eyes. The colors were on a specific time, but on at different times. The time between there flash was specific. The transformation was so fast, the two individual colors were not said to be seen by humans, but there combinaiton was. The brain put the two colors together as one. So instead of seeing say red and blue, we see purple, but that doesn't mean we didn't see the other two colors. We just didn't see them at a certain place. We see them at a distance through one color.

Just because we can't remember, are unaware of influences doesn't mean they don't exist, which means, the whole of influences is the whole. The pythgorean theory in terms of momentum during collision can confuse people such as making it appear that something is cancelled. But the theory of conservation of energy disproves this. Momenta change form.

If you are determinist, are you suggesting that we can predict the fourth using a computer? It's a common understanding among scientists today that it certainly is not the case.

Depends upon how much of the energy is transforming into forms we can keep a good track of and our ability to mathematically deduce the next frame. It depends on how far you want to predict.

I would like to suggest reading about Heisenberg's principle or quantum mechanics.

So far, what I've tried to read of these ideas have presenting a lot of what I remember from the religious free-will mind set. That was the mind set I came from to Newtonian ideas. Now with Newton, those foolish concepts are only mental disorder. If I read more of those ideas and they do have validity to the world, they are based upon Newtonian ideas. If they have very little Newtonians ideas, they're unquantified, which means disorder. Nothing is usefull to talk about unless it can be measured. You don't know what or how much of the what you are talking about. What makes sense about that?

 

[saviourmachine]

'Unpredictable' & 'environment'

Can I rephrase to say "if we are partly independent then our environment will become unpredictable since it is the effect of our choices"

Yes, indeed. Although, 1) the word 'unpredictable' is a little bit vague. A system of events can be approximated stochastically in general. Even if it are human decisions, or radioactive decay. I - indeed - would say that there always remains some unpredictability in nature.
And, 2) what is the difference between us and the environment exactly? If we divide nature in different systems, we see that some - us - obtain the ability to make choices (partly) independent of the other systems - our environment. In that case the effect of our choices will enter the physical world in the same way as radioactive probability equations.

Everything is caused

1) Yeah, you don't know. 2) Cause all you do know is based upon cause.

It's okay for me not to know everything. Admitting that is not a fault. I don't know for example how 1) follows out of 2).

Because all that you know has a cause.

What is the cause for me being able to know? How did I learn to learn? You still have another idea about what 'cause' is exactly. What is the cause that an apple is falling from a tree? Is it the curved time-space bending of Earth and apple such that the apple tries (inertially) to stay in the same state, what results in a spatial movement (following a geodesic: shortest 'line' between two spacetime 'points')?

Randomness & ignorance

Therefore, we can say randomness theory is ignorance.

Random phenomena are defined in a domain: random over time, random over space? Also can often something be said about distributions: different 'kinds' of randomness. And generally some stochastical theories can be applied, due to the short range of the random phenomenon. So, beit that randomness suggest a front-end to our knowledge, we don't have to be total ignorant about it.

Independant systems? If they are independant how did you receive the light waves that give you knowledge of their existence.

I didn't say that my whole being is independent, certainly not. I only expressed my feelings that it's possible that some parts are independent. It's like 'memories', how much memories do you 'store' in your brain, how much are just 'stored' in your environment (as environmental cues)? Some of my knowledge became more or less independent of my environment, some isn't.

The environment creates things that are sensed.

Create things... causually?

 

[omin]

We keep going round and round on this. This is called circular reasoning as a whole.

I see the problem with your theory saviormachine. I had this very same problem raised as a Christian. But it wasn't just religion that created it, but it certainly was part of it.

If you think about think about things in the positive it will help. Try to write things without using negatives or un or non's just for fun, if you don't mind humoring my request. It is very difficult. But it gives you a sense of what is, which is all there is.

 

[Preator Fenix]

I have a problem with the concept of freewill; not as weather we have or have not a freewill, but that to even accept the idea of said term one has to make 2 assumptions.

a. that we are wholly independant entities, with our mental state somehow isolated from "physical" reality, and therefore entirely responsible for our own actions.

b. that the human existence is somehow separte from the enviorment, not just in a local sense of things we recognize as obivous inluences but that on a marcoscopic way 'we' are isolated from the universe.

From the way nature seems to have strutured herself, both case's do not seem correct.

I believe a better question to ask is weather freewill exits as a property of the universe, but not to limit it only to human existence.

 

[saviourmachine]

Independent & phyisical

Universal freewill

I believe a better question to ask is weather freewill exits as a property of the universe, but not to limit it only to human existence.

Good point. What would freewill of the universe look like? Is it only that it should be 'aware' of everything and make a choice independent of everything? Random?

Independent & physical
About independence as non-physical, I don't think that has to be the case. I think that the many partly independent natural systems (a flower, an animal, a planet e.g.) are a finger pointing that 'evolution' also maybe solved it, and made independent system (although builded from physical structures).

An analogy
I'm searching for an analogy. Operators and operands. The natural numbers are 'bounded' to each other by the plus-operator. Take a number, put it in the operator system and you get another (predictable) number.
What determinists say is that this operator system is the one and only system. No other system exists in nature. There are no random number generators, and so on. One of the main problems I have with this theory is that it does need a first number.
There are a few possibilities IMHO to make room for independent behaviour. Firstly, the deterministic point of view makes indeed a difference between the operators and the operands: physical laws and physical entities are considered different. What if the entities can alter the behaviour of the system? What if the numerical result influences the (plus-) operator system? This is a new argument by the way.
Secondly, my old argument. I think that the systems can be connected such that one system influences the other. This leads already with plus-operator (feedback) systems to integrating behaviour. And this is even with the assumption that the individual gains of the systems can be added to obtain the gain of the whole system.
Conclusion is at least that we are too ignorant to know what is possible yet IMHO.

Circular reasoning

We keep going round and round on this. This is called circular reasoning as a whole.

Disagreeing is not circular reasoning. You say everything is deterministic, I say I am not sure about it and think that it's maybe possible that there are indeterministic phenomena. You say that there is no free will, I say I am not sure about it and think that it's maybe possible that there are independent (free) phenomena in complex systems. Can you point out mine circular reasoning please?

Aversion?

I see the problem with your theory saviormachine. I had this very same problem raised as a Christian.

So you can be brainwashed that much, that you regard everything that belonged to your previous worldview as wrong. Is that why you are that convinced about your ideas?

Think about things in the positive

If you think about think about things in the positive it will help. Try to write things without using negatives or un or non's just for fun, if you don't mind humoring my request. It is very difficult. But it gives you a sense of what is, which is all there is.

I will try when I've time. About what? Is it allowed to ask questions? I know that and that and that and that. That's fine, that's okay. Do you see? I can be positive sometimes... I am a critical thinker, I am asking, I am suggesting possibilities. I am. I I I I I.*

* I am just kidding of course, I am a hedonist you know, I love life, I love myself. I do this thinking because I love it. I know what is, and that has much to do with life itself, with eating, drinking and just being. I am a beast for many and a god to myself. I'd like to know what kind of psychical influence you think your request would have on me.

 

[Preator Fenix]

tnx.

To clarify my last stament; the point I was making is that the discussion of free will really depends a lot on perspective, or scale at which you are using.

For instance it can be said (for the sake of agrument) that I have freewill in weather or not I can move my arm. Yet from the prespective of a micosopic single nerve cell things would like quite differnt. From its POV, the signals it recives would seem VERY deterministic ( at x amount of input nerve state is now yx for example) and due to the fact that it is not prevy to the sensory information provided by the brain, this nerve cell would ( if he was smart ) conclude that not only are the signals deterministic, but also random.

In the same vain I hold the belief that the universe may express its own from of freewill, and that it may be quite differnt from our own local experience and definition of "freewill". Also I object the concept that man, at least in the mental sense, as a small island isolated from the rest of the universe. We , which includes our minds, are of the same meaty stuff of stars galaxies and quasars, just organized in a differnt way

Our underlying cells consitute our physical enviorment, so to the universe does man ( and all other things for that matter) constitue's its own physical enviorment.

My problem with the concept of freewill as expressed in this thread is the underlying assumption it is by neccesity a uniquely and exlusively human property.

 

[Leaping antalope]

I think the "true freewell" would be illusion, but since our freewell is limited by our thought and imagination, so our freewell is not illusion.

I LOVE that idea of becoming a god of my own universe. That idea is pleasent to think about, and it makes sense too. I hope it's for real!

I don't think the idea of becoming a god and create one's own universe would be a simple task. Since our freewell is limited, it is not easy for us to create a totally differnt universe. Just think of the concepts of time and gravitation, if someone did create the universe, he would have to be really creative to do so.

 

[hypnagogue]

The word randomness still seems to have a lot of power here if I interpret correctly. It isn't that we do (crazy) random things or dream random dreams.. It, to me, is buried a lot deeper. This is my theory: Take the decision to either to go to McDonalds or Carl's Jr for lunch for example. The decision making is for the most part all environmental (your preference, your genies, what you've been eating, what parts of your brain are most active[which will seem random since it is built on past random decisions]). The choice can be calculated (using a computer) all the way down to the final answer (you're going to Carl's Jr because absolutely every variable imaginable points you there) as if you were in a sim game, and you're just an AI dude walking around in a simulated city. The difference between you and that AI in the sim game is that, before committing, the screen asks, Goto Carl's? ACCEPT (YES/NO). That's where it's a random decision, and it's always a 50/50 probability (after absolutely everything is said and done), sort of how quantum mechanics probabilities are always 50/50. Please distinguish that it's not 50/50 between McDonald's and Carl's, and it isn't that you will automatically choose McDonalds if you choose NO. That final decision could be what is INDEPENDENT from the system, and according to Many Worlds Interpretation, walks you into one of many possible worlds.

Even if decisions are random, this does not imply that they will always come down to a 50/50 split. If this were the case, then all that information about genes, environment, etc. would be completely irrelevant, and we would also never be able to predict any human behavior reliably at all. Consider, though, that every student in the world on every school day is faced with the choice: shall I attend school today or not? If decision making really were a 50/50 split, then only (roughly) half of the kids in the world would attend school on any given school day. This obviously isn't the case.

A given event can have a random outcome even if one outcome is more probable than another. Consider a coin that is weighted such that tails comes up 80% of the time. A flip of this coin is still random in the same sense that a flip of a fair coin is random, insofar as we can't predict with certainty what the outcome will be. More generally, if we say an event is random, we just mean that its outcome cannot be predicted with complete certainty-- this does not imply that each outcome is equally likely, however.

 

[ill rich]

if every action is the result of another act, yes you are right.

every "choice" you make is dependant on other situations, and the "choice" isn't a choice at all - just another reaction.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

For freewill to exist then the law of conservation of momentum must be violated.
Then when one atom bumps into another something unpredictable will happen
in terms of the direction and speeds at which the atoms move after the collision.
No such event has ever been observed.

 

[Alkatran]

My insides tell me free will is true but physics tell me it is not.

Every human action will be what that human believes will be most beneficial for themselves. Some people consider helping other helpful, others consider jumping off a bridge beneficial.

 

[jimwig]

can i fly? gravity says no.
can i choose to fly? freewill says yes
will i be successful? in all probability on this planet, no.
what is flight? who chooses the definition? is the definition universal?
is the definition personal and or unique?
do i have the free will (as opposed to predetermined even structure) to say these things? i just did.
did anyone approve or disapprove?

to think these things? to formulate a "indiviual answer" that is valid to myself if not anyone else?
must the community approve my thoughts for validity? must universal acceptance constitute reality?
and what about my perceptions - do i not have the right to be wrong as well as the right to be right?

i can sit in a dark cave if i desire and be bound only by my lack of transcendent ability.
or not. and leave the cave in spirit and manifest physically another time place space though a community concept known as reincarnation (which is still out with jury) but I digress and choose to exclude faith based notions.

is the physical all there is - that is absolute and dominant - for that is giving no options to our existence and in a way this is a perceived truth.

community didn't approve physical truths but they did collaborate as perhaps scientists have (not to mention the faith based ones).

we want answers - be it enlightment, research, or drugs. is it proper to choose oblivion? to end our lives as indiviuals or adhere to someone else's idea of a universal debt to others? the obligation of pain or joy as community defined.