Freewill: A Path to Spiritual Evolution

[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.

 

[Dovekie]

Cyfin is right. We have the freewill do to anything, but lack the ability to do so.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

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.

i don't totally agree with that, the sentence which i bolded...and its only now that i am bringing it up because it is only now that I've been introduced to Henri D'Holbach. i don't really familiar with him or not. i'll refresh anyone who isnt. D'holbach said that man is NEVER a free agent. we're never truly free. as hard as that is to accept. we weren't free to choose whether or not we wanted to be born, and even still, now when we think ourselves to be independant, free adults, we are not. This is because everything we think, everything that comes to our minds, every single decision is influenced by something. therefore, in the end, the decision which we made, the decision which we think we made out of our own free will was not our own decision at all. we made that choice because we were influenced to do so, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.
Example: a woman goes shopping with her friend. she looks at two different dresses , one red and one black, and cannot decide which to buy. she can only buy one. she tries them both on and asks her friend which one looks better. her friend says the black one because it makes her look slimmer. the woman thinks a bit and finally decides on the black one.

that is a really really basic example. its really simple. however, look deeper into this and from now on in her life, that woman will be affected by that decision. from now on she will look slimmer in black. she will refer back to that decision from then on. whenever buying clothes she will think "this is a nice colour, but black makes me look slimmer." and even if she does choose the red one, its because she thinks she looks better in it. but that is still not her free will decision. why? because she is defining what looks good by what society tells her looks good. therefore she is influenced by society.

all in all, memories, past decisions, past cravings, and present cravings, etc all make our decisions for us. as hard as that is to believe.

and one more thing i'd like to comment on is the whole "When an animal, such as a dog, makes a dicition, its instinct tells it what to do." in many ways humans are like that too...you can dangle a treat in front of a dog and it will jump for it. dangle a bill in front of a human and i guarantee they will jump for it too.many people act on instinct rather then logic as well.

 

[Canute]

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

This seems incorrect to me. Physics has nothing at all to say about freewill. Physicists, of course, have a great deal to say, since they generally plump for theories based on its non-existence. However there is no scientific evidence that freewill is an illusion as yet. It is perfectly possible, as far as the scientific evidence goes, that freewill is just what 'folk-psychology' leads us think that it is.

To turn this around the other way, if it is reasonable to argue that freewill is an illusion then it is reasonable to argue that consciousness is an illusion, and many argue that the phenomeneal world and sentient beings are an illusion. Once you make the illusion argument for one thing you have to have to make it for all.

I suppose one question that arises is whether we are free to make up our own minds on this issue. If not then there's not much point in discussing it.