The "Great Theists vs. Atheists"-thread spawned this interesting tangent, which is worthy a topic of its own.
My question is this: Does free will exist?
No matter what exact definition of the phrase you use, free will implies that I have a choice in what I do. I could go for a walk now, or continue posting. A machine doesn't have free will. Even the actions of something as complicated as a computer are predetermined: You press a button, complicated things happen, and a letter appears on screen. Obviously it doesn't have a choice.
But then problems start to appear, because humans also seem to be complicated machines. From the single cells that make up our body, up to organs, tissues and the whole organism, everything happens just like in the machine example: Something happens to the body, complicated things happen inside it, and it reacts. There is no free will there.
But wait, it gets worse. The usual reply to that is: "Yes, but we obviously have free will, since I can choose to either keep posting, or go for a walk now." Which is a perfectly fine reply, apart from one flaw. The feeling of choice you have might be only that: a feeling.
To sum it up: I don't think free will exists. The term describes a feeling, nothing more.
I disagree. Take killing someone for example. A shady looking character wants you to kill that guy over there. He'll give you $100000 for it. You decline the offer, using free will, because you know that killing people is wrong and you'd be sent to jail & that sort of stuff. But I suppose that you could, if you really REALLY wanted to. No one is trying to stop you, it's just the consequences that follow.
So, what I'm trying to say is, it's more than the feeling. It's the fact that you can do what you what you want to do.
That's a good point. But is there really any free will involved?
You decline the offer, using free will, because you know that killing people is wrong and you'd be sent to jail & that sort of stuff.
I would say that the person in your example declines the offer using reason and thinking. That's a little like a computer which cranks through a number of simulations and then chooses the best result (like on the stock market). You don't really need free will for that, do you?
And if you can leave out the free will from that reasoning part, all that remains is the feeling
I've come across two definitions of free will and both are incredibly different. One states that decisions can be made that do not have any cause or external influences. As you eluded to in your OP, I think if we explain this matter clearly enough, everyone should agree this conception of free will is impossible.
Another I've found is simply a choice or decision. We do make choices. We simply always choose the ones we perceive to be the best. In this case, if there was no free will, there would be no options to choose from. In this case, I argue free will exists.
However it really depends on the situation. In the end we can define everything properly and state what can and cannot be true, or what we aren't able to determine yet.
Your argument seems to be an argument by analogy. Machines receive input and produce an output based on certain specifications laid out by the programmer. Similarly, humans also receive inputs and produce outputs. The crucial premise you need is that humans and machines are sufficiently similar in all relevant aspects. And this premise seems patently false. The relevant disanalogies between humans and machines are ... plentiful.
I think we have the a bit of free will, but not very much. If we had a lot more free will than we do now, we wouldn't have a reason to live. We all want to fit in, not be ourselves as much.
An interesting analogy and not without its merits. While Moegreche is right in saying that the differences between man and machine are numerous, wollf is correct in the idea that humans truly have no free will. The idea of free will is a delusion. It is true that we, as humans, may choose to do whatever we wish, however we wish it, but of course, there are limitations. We're sentient and therefore, self aware of our own actions and the consequences those actions may ensue. Choice is an illusion, a man or woman may say I can choose to do any number of things, yet once they have chosen to do one thing they eliminate the options that existed before the choice. And why they chose to do one thing over the other is predetermined by their own mindset, thus, if we are predetermined in a choices through our experiences, what true choice is there? Yes these predeterminations may change and therefore affecting future choices, however, simply because we chose A over B or C in the past and then B over A or C in the future does not mean we have any true sense of free will, it simply means we believe that the choice we made is the only true choice we had in each senario.
The comparison to an ethical quandary is flawed. The influences of society and morality, have a huge influence on how you make your decision, were there no stigmas against murder, that would not be a hard decision, i.e. the way one is raised can constrain your free will.
i am yet to be convinced that we don't have free will. as for the a,b,c thing... you chose to adhere to whatever criteria that dictated how you were to choose. like school work for example... a teacher wants you to do it one way,A, but you're thinking of doing it another,B, or not at all,C. If you don't go by A then you fail. A is the only true choice for that scenario... and somehow many students manage to do nothing
I agree with Sonata. The teacher gives you schoolwork to complete and you go home and procrastinate, and while at school you slack off. That's because you have the free will to chose not to do the work that the teacher set you.
As a -future- mathematician I personally believe that human actions are determined -to some extent- by various factors and variables.
However, mathematical (or any scientific) principles do not apply well to living beings, especially when they are as complex as humans. There is really no formula, hence human's actions are -mostly- unpredictable. If its -ceteris paribus- implausible knowing the choices of a person, before a person makes them, and if we don't know all the factors that determine this particular choice, its arbitrary saying that their choices are externally determined. Therefore we cannot conclude if there is free will or not.
If you don't go by A then you fail. A is the only true choice for that scenario... and somehow many students manage to do nothing
While this may be true, you forget that perspective is often needed. It is true that A may seem like the best choice for a student wanting to succeed, however, those that disregard choice A do so because they disregard the concequences, often because such is their predetermined disposition. Disregarding the concequences is still considering said consequences, but one does not believe that such things matter. The could choose A, but they won't simply because of their perspective of the situation. If we had free will would we not be able to choose a path, stop, reconsider and go down another path? While we do this from time to time we often merely go along the first choice. Not because we believe it is right, but because we chose to do so and because we believe we must continue on our choices because we chose it.
That's because you have the free will to chose not to do the work that the teacher set you.
Ultimatums do not make a good example to prove free will. If I say you can choose to do the assignment or not, but should you not do it you'll fail the class, then there is little free will in that, because the punishment outweighs the reward.
