Free Will 2
If you believe in God, I have already written a paper a while ago. Here is the link. http://legolas-i-haran.livejournal.com/131003.html#cutid1. Although I am fairly sure that it is stated in the Bible that free will exists, It was written for my Philosophy of Religion class, so it’s a little more formal and different from my normal style of writing. But since you don’t really know my style of writing, I don’t see why what I just said is at all important. I suppose it is necessary to write a pragmatic version as well.
For the average person, not having free will is scary. The idea that we do not have a choice and that we are slaves to whatever is controlling us is unsettling. Still, I do not believe in free will. OK, that’s a lie. I tell people that because it’s more fun to argue (I love to argue (which is possibly why I like being different)). However, I do lean very close towards the no-free-will theory (Let’s say 90%), because the arguments I have seen are very good (Come to think of it, I can’t really remember any arguments for free will existing. How do you argue for it? Perhaps my current belief is only held due to lack of arguments on the pro-free-will side). Thinking about it, if free will exists, nothing really changes. But if free will doesn’t exist, we are essentially slaves. It appears believing in free will is just a matter of being happy (Which I can completely understand if a person believes in free will just for the sake of happiness).
My usual argument against free will describes people essentially as very advanced robots (The view of an automatist). Choices we “make” are results of an inequality (which may be VERY complex) whose variables are dependent on current and past events (Knowledge, is an event we remember). Here is a simplified example of our equation. If your arm is on fire, most brains essentially think, “A) My arm is on fire. B) I learned before that fire hurts a lot. Conclusion: If the value of my arm is greater than the value of it being on fire, I should put it out ASAP.”
However this is a fairly simple decision. What about something like why a person would go base jumping (Which some may consider “crazy”)? A) The purpose of base jumping is to fall and then release a parachute. B) Base jumping can lead to death. C) I like the sensation of falling/ I want to know the sensation of falling. D) The probability of death from base jumping is very low. Conclusion: If the value of falling is greater than the value of life times the probability of death, I will base jump.
So if our decisions are based on an inequality, there is no “choice.” But what about picking left or right? This simple choice appears to have equal values on both sides. So how do we choose? At least this little problem must be the free will portion of the world. But even the process of choosing left or right has many psychological factors that may be embedded ever since we were 2 years old. These factors may have huge impacts on our decision making process.
So while our decisions are preprogrammed, there are so many different variables to the inequality that it is most likely impossible to truly know the outcome. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that I can accurately predict a person’s EVERY action. So if it is absolutely predictable, there is no way of doing something otherwise. If you can’t do something otherwise, there is no choice, and therefore no free will. So in the real world, where we probably won’t be able to precisely predict a person’s decision, but is still based on the theory of inequality described, the decision is still not free. It is merely unknown due to our lack of knowledge of the composition of the inequality.
Here is an article on a recent experiment on predicting a person’s decision. I am not sure if it is compatible with my theory, but is still pretty much against free will and quite interesting.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision
For the average person, not having free will is scary. The idea that we do not have a choice and that we are slaves to whatever is controlling us is unsettling. Still, I do not believe in free will. OK, that’s a lie. I tell people that because it’s more fun to argue (I love to argue (which is possibly why I like being different)). However, I do lean very close towards the no-free-will theory (Let’s say 90%), because the arguments I have seen are very good (Come to think of it, I can’t really remember any arguments for free will existing. How do you argue for it? Perhaps my current belief is only held due to lack of arguments on the pro-free-will side). Thinking about it, if free will exists, nothing really changes. But if free will doesn’t exist, we are essentially slaves. It appears believing in free will is just a matter of being happy (Which I can completely understand if a person believes in free will just for the sake of happiness).
My usual argument against free will describes people essentially as very advanced robots (The view of an automatist). Choices we “make” are results of an inequality (which may be VERY complex) whose variables are dependent on current and past events (Knowledge, is an event we remember). Here is a simplified example of our equation. If your arm is on fire, most brains essentially think, “A) My arm is on fire. B) I learned before that fire hurts a lot. Conclusion: If the value of my arm is greater than the value of it being on fire, I should put it out ASAP.”
However this is a fairly simple decision. What about something like why a person would go base jumping (Which some may consider “crazy”)? A) The purpose of base jumping is to fall and then release a parachute. B) Base jumping can lead to death. C) I like the sensation of falling/ I want to know the sensation of falling. D) The probability of death from base jumping is very low. Conclusion: If the value of falling is greater than the value of life times the probability of death, I will base jump.
So if our decisions are based on an inequality, there is no “choice.” But what about picking left or right? This simple choice appears to have equal values on both sides. So how do we choose? At least this little problem must be the free will portion of the world. But even the process of choosing left or right has many psychological factors that may be embedded ever since we were 2 years old. These factors may have huge impacts on our decision making process.
So while our decisions are preprogrammed, there are so many different variables to the inequality that it is most likely impossible to truly know the outcome. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that I can accurately predict a person’s EVERY action. So if it is absolutely predictable, there is no way of doing something otherwise. If you can’t do something otherwise, there is no choice, and therefore no free will. So in the real world, where we probably won’t be able to precisely predict a person’s decision, but is still based on the theory of inequality described, the decision is still not free. It is merely unknown due to our lack of knowledge of the composition of the inequality.
Here is an article on a recent experiment on predicting a person’s decision. I am not sure if it is compatible with my theory, but is still pretty much against free will and quite interesting.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision