I don't believe in free will... but do you know what I do believe in?

(March 4, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: Who predetermined it? Not me or you, nor God, He saw what was to be, but had nothing to do with my decision. So how is my decision anything but freewill?

There you have it. Something is above, beyond, or around your god. Some flow of events to which he is privy to but not in charge of. Some thing or process about which your god is completely powerless. Thank you, I'll worship that instead.

(March 3, 2012 at 1:25 am)helmespc Wrote: The scientific existence of freewill depends largely on Heisenberg's principal.... but in turn Heisenberg's principal gives credence to the idea of "something from nothing" which gives credence to the idea of a universe w/o an initial cause. Either way, Heisenberg's principal is a fact at this point, and therefore freewill remains possible... but by its very nature, we must now allow for the creation of something from the hypothetical "nothing" due to the very same principal that gives us the possibility of freewill.

This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. The Uncertainty principle places limits on what we can know, it does not in any way restrict or grant freedoms to the systems themselves. The course of a sequence of subatomic interactions can be completely determined, 100%, and Heisenberg would still apply. Because it's not a principle about what subatomic particles can do.

But beyond that, you're looking for free will in the wrong place. Events at the quantum level, if they have any effect at all, express themselves as mere random moments. Randomness is not will. And it's relatively clear to all but die hard woo peddlers that the real action is macroscopic. And yes, we're discovering more all the time, such as the involvement of the myelin sheath in modulating neuron responses. However, what you're suggesting is that, if we take a probe hooked up to a random number generator, and stick it in there somewhere, free will is going to pop out, "like" an emergent property. Ain't gonna happen. Order plus randomness equals either more order, or complete randomness; freedom never emerges.

(March 4, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: Love selfish really, you must not be married, are you close to family?

Not married, but very close to my family. And I can proudly say that my love for them is an extremely selfish emotion. I love them because they represent extremely important values to me. Without them, I wouldn't exist as I do and since I love who I am, I would also love those who played a part in making me who I am.

And if and when I get married, it would be with someone who can give me reasons to love myself even more and for whom I could do the same.

(March 5, 2012 at 1:55 am)apophenia Wrote: And it's relatively clear to all but die hard woo peddlers that the real action is macroscopic.

There is some legitimate debate regarding this by reputable people like Roger Penrose. I don't believe the issue has been definitely decided one way or the other.

(March 5, 2012 at 2:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 5, 2012 at 1:55 am)apophenia Wrote: And it's relatively clear to all but die hard woo peddlers that the real action is macroscopic.

There is some legitimate debate regarding this by reputable people like Roger Penrose. I don't believe the issue has been definitely decided one way or the other.

Asked and answered.

“Many much-learned men have no intelligence.” — Democritus

I don't really believe in free will the way most people do. I mean, I know I can control my body, but it feels like my actions are pretty much predetermined by my nature. The way I put it is: "I am the helmsman of by body, but certainly not the captain".

And definitely not the wind. That's really the crux of it. It isn't difficult to see right through what people want free will to do or be. I think it's an outdated notion that doesn't accurately describe what we have uncovered about our world and ourselves. Fascinating really to drill down those things we think we have control over, those things we seem to have control over..and find that often we don't. One of the more amusing criticisms of the classical notion of free will is the thought that there could be some process forcing you to take actions at random. No rhyme or reason to it, no real pattern. What would that look like? A lot like the actions of a human being.

(March 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm)AthiestAtheist Wrote: I don't really believe in free will the way most people do. I mean, I know I can control my body, but it feels like my actions are pretty much predetermined by my nature. The way I put it is: "I am the helmsman of by body, but certainly not the captain".

I know what you mean. Every morning, within 5 minutes of getting up, I have to take a dump. I suppose I could try to resist it but what is the point of that? Eventually peristalsis will triumph.

(March 5, 2012 at 10:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(March 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm)AthiestAtheist Wrote: I don't really believe in free will the way most people do. I mean, I know I can control my body, but it feels like my actions are pretty much predetermined by my nature. The way I put it is: "I am the helmsman of by body, but certainly not the captain".

I know what you mean. Every morning, within 5 minutes of getting up, I have to take a dump. I suppose I could try to resist it but what is the point of that? Eventually peristalsis will triumph.

Here's a better experiment. Get stoned and try to reason yourself out of having the munchies, after all, it's just the cannabis talking.

Or stay up late and choose not to feel sleepy.

But a more pertinent question would be, given:
a) I believe incorrectly that I have free will and act accordingly;
b) I believe correctly that I have free will and act accordingly;
what observational differences will there be between a and b?