So in essence Americans voting for Bush (We like less taxes, do everything on credit) showed no free will, but Americans voting for democrats (We still don’t like taxes to do the stuff) Showed free will?
Was that an actual point, or a chance to get in a political jab?
People voted for Bush because their influences, uhm, influenced them to. And people voted against for the same reason.
All this talk of free will has inspired me to read some of the articles on wiki about free will, determinism, causality, first cause, etc. Some quite mind boggling stuff at times. I would suspect that free will and determinism are related and if you believe in determinism then you would not believe in free will.
Wiki brings up that quantum mechanics is used to negate that everything has a cause “showing that subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish, by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum.”
Also mentioned was radioactive decay and how the atoms should decay at the same rate but for reason sometimes don’t.
So does quantum mechanics negate determinism and support free will by association
How does first cause factor into this? It is commonly held that every even must have a cause. What was the first cause? I know some people also believe now that possibly the universe has always existed.
Well, the point was in reality Taxes, you and I **still would not like ** to pay more even if we still think it is neccessary for society to continue.
Just stating it doesn’t make it true.
I think you’re defining “free will” differently than most people do. I can choose whether or not I steal from someone, but what makes me *want *the money? That’s just a function of being alive. Want and will are not the same thing.
I believe in both, though it’s quite possible there’s a logical flaw that i’m unable to yet grasp. 
Right. But we aren’t just influenced by that sole want of “I like money”, we’re also influenced by the want of “Society should continue or bad things will happen”. And we’re influenced by party affilations, and if we like the candidate (or hate his opponent), or what colour tie they happen to be wearing. And we all bring our own prejudices to the table. Just because “I like money” is one of our general influences, does not mean we act in a way that’ll get us money all the time.
QM might negate or simply dilute determinism but I don’t see how it supports free will. For example events might be partially determined and partially random. Or totally random. I think if you’ll read back in this thread, you’ll see some careful wording that leaves open the possibility of randomness.
That is a very good question. And a difficult one to answer, if it is answerable at all. Think about this: can things “happen” without time? Did time always exist?
This a variation on my question that I have asked twice and am still waiting to have answered (any answer, it doens’t have to be a good answer).
Someone please, pick it up.
And that is the reason I do think on the whole there is no free will, but there are times the randomness and influences will allow us to reach situations that one could call free will, it does not happen often IMHO.
Also what if there were two choices that each had a 50% likelihood of being the choice that is made by the chooser. I can see how this would sort of fit the bill as being free will, but also not free will.
You seem to be defining free will as taking an action which, in general, you would not take. Something out of character. But even these examples (especially these examples, really) highlight the fact that influences can completely change and control your behaviour. It’s not free will to pick chocolate ice cream because you fancy a change from vanilla, it’s just an example of a new influence emerging that overrules older ones. Your unusual decision is perfectly understandable when we look at the specific, current influences, and not just the general ones.
pool, about quantum mechanics and random events. These events could be:
-
Entirely random. In which case the universe is not pre-determined and predictable. That doesn’t mean it validates Free Will. Random choices are not choices in the true sense of the word.
-
Determined by laws we cannot or just have not been able to understand. It still predetermined, then.
-
Determined by supernatural events. Events outside of our universe and not bound by the laws that govern our nature. Well, what can I say. Back to religion.
You would be unable to make the decision until the scales were tipped in one direction.
Sounds like a case where randomness would come into play. (Though it’s hard for me to imagine a practical situation where all possible options have precisely counter-balancing determinants.)
Are we even having the same discussion? What difference does that make? Obviously human beings have more complex motives than dogs. But both dogs and humans can make choices (and dog behavior is a bit more complex anyway: dogs can choose not to eat for social reasons, for instance, and do so all the time): the complexity of factors isn’t what’s at issue, but rather whether those choices can be somehow non-determined by either random factors or some character or nature of the being making the choices. First of all, it’s not clear that there ARE any other options, and second of all, it’s not clear that responsibility or even identity would make sense as concepts if they WEREN’T determined.
Why would you punish a person, that is, a physical being in the here and now with a brain and so forth, for a crime, when that being is not, in fact what made the decision?
I’m defining it in the classical philosophical sense. It may be common for people to misunderstand free will as the ability to act on the will, but those people just don’t understand the concept. Free will is not the ability to DO what you want, it’s the ability to determine the “wanting” itself.
The question is what makes you willing to steal the money. Do you choose to be willing or is the willingness determined by something external. You can’t choose to be willing without already being willing to choose to be willing. And then we’re in an infinite regression.
If the willingness is caused externally, then it’s not free.
Let’s put the question another way.
We have two people, A and B. We have a choice between X and Y. A chooses X, and B chooses Y.
How do we explain their different choices in such a way that we can say A and B were responsible for their choices? Doesn’t doing so REQUIRE that there is some inherent difference between A and B that explains the difference in choices. And yet, once we’ve admitted to that, haven’t we just admitted to the fact that these differences in basic makeup, character, nature/nurture, what have you, explain the choices?
The only other alternative is that the difference in choices is just happenstance, in which case its hard to see why we’d be able to assign responsibility for the choices anyway. We have to be able to track the choices back causally to some basic factor of A and B in order to hold them responsible. Otherwise the choices came out of nowhere, and it makes no sense to credit or blame A or B.
So, are you saying that free will is “not predetermined” will, or that it is “[self] Consciousness”? If it’s the former, how is it not predetermined? Is it random? If not, what causes it? (If it’s the latter, what Dio said)
Oh. Never mind! 
I agree that we do not have the ability to determine the wanting itself, regardless of what the perfect Buddhist might think about his ability to divorce himself from desire.
But so what? That just means we’re animals, subject to the constraints of our biology-- DNA and environment. You’d have to posit some supernatural agent (the soul?) to say that we can determine the wanting. I wouldn’t posit such an agent.
I won’t go that far: what our chemical reactors do is qualitatively different from what those in apples, rocks, and (to a lesser extent) dogs do. Apples and rocks don’t ever evaluate their situation and make decisions about appropriate courses of actions, to the best of our knowledge. Dogs do, but they do not do so with anything like the complexity that humans do so.
Still and all, I think you’re right, that it’s all chemicals.
Can you elaborate on this? Specifically, can you talk about whether self consciousness is a product of chemical reactions, and whether, given a certain set of trillions of inputs, a particular human can make either of two decisions? If so, what, physically, allows for such divergents of decisions?
Daniel