Is there such a thing as free will?

[Blackthornone]

This is an interesting point, living organisms do originate from a physical world, therefore consciousness could not exist were the universe to contain matter for living organisms to exist.

But to say that, if it is not physical, it stems from a spiritual realm/dimension is an assumption, what is the basis of this assumption?

The basis of the assumption is essentially process of elimination. If free will truly exists, then consciousness must be able to exist independently of physical reality.
If consciousness evolved FROM physical reality, then consciousness was designed by it and thus would be an extension of it.
If consciousness is an extension of physical reality, then the very nature of consciousness is determined by physical reality.
There can be no real independence from the thing that created you, no matter how hard you try. The tree cannot live without the soil it grew from.

You see, a tree IS the soil, the water, the carbon dioxide and the sunlight that made it. The tree is NOT something completely different.
If consciousness was derived from the physical, it would not be completely independent, either.

 

[devilof76]

Your version of free will is a straw man. The only place evidence of the phenomenon arises is in human beings; physical entities.

 

[Blackthornone]

Your version of free will is a straw man. The only place evidence of the phenomenon arises is in human beings; physical entities.

You are saying that only human beings have free will or consciousness?

 

[devilof76]

Human beings are obviously not the only organisms (available for observation) with consciousness. They are the only ones with volitional consciousness, i.e., free will. Provide me with another observable example if you believe they are not.

I'll even accept non-biological examples, if that helps.

 

[Blackthornone]

Human beings are obviously not the only organisms (available for observation) with consciousness. They are the only ones with volitional consciousness, i.e., free will. Provide me with another observable example if you believe they are not.

I'll even accept non-biological examples, if that helps.

Dogs, cats, and dolphins, for 3. They all have individual personalities. Individual personalities indicates free will. They just lack power compared to human beings, except when big dogs maul or kill you, for example.
Most people who have had pets recognize that.

 

[devilof76]

Individual personalities are the defining characteristic of free will? I don't think so.

But now that you've put yourself out there, I'll be happy to wait while you prove to us that these animals have the capacity to make decisions, and are not simply reacting to stimuli in a manner particular to their unique set of experiences.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Animals have to act on instinct. Humans have the ability to choose.

That's why animals are awesome, and humans suck for their terrible choices.

 

[devilof76]

That was pretty much the answer I was looking for.

 

[galmando]

Humans react to stimuli as well

A human and a dog can choose to drink available water if thirsty

As humans, we have other stimuli that we react to that animals may never experience

One of the major characteristics that an animal, other than a human, has yet to convey is the ability to ask questions or create an idea

 

[devilof76]

A human can choose to not drink if they're thirsty and there's nothing wrong with the water. You'd have to condition the hell out of a thirsty dog to get them to refuse water. A human can do it on a whim.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

This thread....

 

[galmando]

This thread....

Hey!! This thread rules the roost!!

 

[Pork Chop Express]

Sure.

However, things to consider:
Where you live.
The color of your skin.
How much money that you can truly call your own.
And most importantly the consequences of your decisions.

 

[devilof76]

The only thing that can truly circumvent your power of choice is physical force (or indirect forms of force, such as fraud, or the threat of force). Free will doesn't mean having unlimited options or power. It means that you aren't controlled (like a dog) by the stimuli that you experience. No one can make you believe what you have no reason to believe; no one can stop you from thinking, or acting on that thought.

 

[Blackthornone]

The only thing that can truly circumvent your power of choice is physical force (or indirect forms of force, such as fraud, or the threat of force). Free will doesn't mean having unlimited options or power. It means that you aren't controlled (like a dog) by the stimuli that you experience. No one can make you believe what you have no reason to believe; no one can stop you from thinking, or acting on that thought.

Free will must mean unlimited options. Otherwise it is only relatively free will. A set number of multiple choice options isn't free will. Having to choose from only one restaurant's menu isn't free will either.
It is only free will when you can dine at any restaurant or make any meal you want yourself, with all the ingredients in the world to choose from to make that meal.

Once you make that meal, and eat it, the consequences to your body will be what eating that will cause, which in a sense means you are influenced by something beyond your control, but you CHOSE to eat that meal, and therefore whatever consequences of eating it was in effect, your free will.
To eat a given meal or eat nothing at all isn't free will, either, because you must eat to live. Only when you have the ability to choose what table you will be seated at, and choose what you will eat can you have free will.

 

[occulum]

having the option of only 26 letters when communicating also negates free will .... ....

 

[Blackthornone]

having the option of only 26 letters when communicating also negates free will .... ....

No, it does not. Letters are arbitrarily agreed upon symbols of components of things used to make any description desired for the purpose of communication. There are only 10 numbers, but that doesn't mean you can only have 10 of anything.

There must be a finite agreed upon number of letters from which to form all words, so that the meaning is remembered and thus understood, in order to facilitate communication.

You COULD invent more letters if you like. Nothing is stopping you. The only problem is that no one else will understand you, thus defeating the purpose of inventing those letters.

The way the letters are combined determines what it is. Similarly, you could use the same ingredients, and yet come up with two totally different tasting meals by altering their ratios.

There is literally an unlimited variety of meals, words or numbers that you could make. The only limitation is the chef.

 

[occulum]

.... .....

 

[galmando]

So I’m seeing 2 main opinions;

1. The mind/conscious is composed of some form of matter.
2. The mind/conscious is ethereal, non-tangible.

Considering option 1, if the mind is of a material quality, composed of matter/energy that could theoretically be measured, then it is fair to say that it, along with all other matter/mass/energy, would find it’s origin in the big bang some 13.7 billion years ago.

That being the case, it should therefore be subject to, as is every piece of matter in existence, cause and effect. Right down to each particle that composes it’s entire being. In that way, a human choice to either drink water because they are thirsty or not to not drink despite being thirsty would still involve some interaction between the material that the mind is made up of, in which case I can’t see how that decision is any different to the reactions that cause a piece of ice to melt.

You made the choice, but did you really have any control in it? If atom A is here, and then it interacts with atom B, does that encourage the choice that you made? An incredibly crude example, but the only way I can think to explain what I am thinking.

Option 2 is far more interesting, although not what I necessarily believe in. If the mind truly is not composed of any material/energy/mass/matter, yet exists currently within a material universe and within space and time, then it could not have been ‘formed’ during the beginning of the known universe. In which case it did not exist within the universe to being with.

From that you would have to ask the question, where did it come from? Is it an inter-dimensional entity with the sole purpose of giving sentience to living organisms? If it were not formed with the universe, does this mean it is also not subject to the laws of the universe/existence/physics. Can the mind exists outside of time and space altogether?

Thinking about this has really melted my head a little bit and I think I might be worrying about this too much.

I’m supposed to be working yet I cannot get this idea that, if it is option 2, that it is not subject to time or any other ‘law’.



What have I done to myself?!

If I mis-understood any of the 2 opinions, my apologies

 

[Mr. Green]

.... .....

he fell for your trap it seem..his definition of free will might as well be god.