Free Will

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
Do you have it? Lately this has become an important question to me. It's actually been incentive to become vegetarian (which I'm still not, but I've been eating less meat as a result of these thoughts).

I'm not talking about fate or anything like that, rather, how much do you actually control what you do. I say we have no control. My reasoning is that our actions are always determined by what we want to do, but we have no control over what we want. You can't make yourself not want to breathe. You can't make yourself not hungry. You can abstain from eating but you're going to remain hungry. You can't make yourself dislike someone you like, you can't make yourself like someone you dislike. You can't make yourself prefer country music if you love rap music more. Etc.

I was having this conversation with my roommate, who believes that she has free will, she was making a sandwich at the time. I asked why she chose to fold the slices of meat the way she did. She said because she prefers it that way. I asked why she prefers it that way, and if she would be able to make herself prefer some another way. She didn't really have an answer.

I'm not trying to convince anybody one way or the other, I'm just interested in finding out what this subset of people believe, since we have a large community here it'd probably be a somewhat accurate representation of what people in general believe.
 
No, but I'm not a 100% positivist either. Like most things, it's not black and white. People don't have to either have 100% free will or be 100% shaped by their environment and other factors.

I think these two black and white assumptions about human nature are a big flaw with theory in the social sciences.

In reality, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Humans do have capacity for rational through and making decisions. But this decision making is very much influenced by the environment--which shapes what choices they have to make, what opportunities they have, what obstacles they have to overcome. Humans are emotional beings, so emotion sometimes gets in way of the pure rational thought assumed by the 100% free will argument. Drugs and alcohol also impair decision making etc.

So I think the best theories are those that eschew sticking to those extreme assumptions about human nature, and acknowledge that both are true and humans due make decisions--but within the context of environmental factors external to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But of course.

I posted and voted in this thread. If thats not a clear case of forcing myself to go against what I wanted to do, then by golly I don't know what is.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Humans do have capacity for rational thought and making decisions. But this decision making is very much influenced by the environment--which shapes what choices they have to make, what opportunities they have, what obstacles they have to overcome. Humans are emotional beings, so emotion sometimes gets in way of the pure rational thought assumed by the 100% free will argument.[/QUOTE]

Why do you separate rational thought from factors beyond our control? How do you control your 'rational thought'? I would argue that decisions made as the result of rational thought are no different than decisions made on impulse, in that, in the end, they were the result of mental feelings (urges, impulses, drive, whatever you wanna call it) beyond our control.

Let's walk through a rational decision: I have a Brita water filter with a large reservoir. It doesn't fit in the sink, so, to fill it up, I put a pitcher under the faucet, fill it up, and dump the pitcher into the water filter's reservoir, where it then begins filtering and fills up the container. The reservoir can hold about 1.5 pitchers. It filters pretty quickly, I'd estimate about 1% of the reservoir per second. Now, the two different ways most people would approach filling the reservoir is either...

1 -- Fill the pitcher up completely and dump it into the reservoir. Then fill the pitcher up half way and dump it into the reservoir.

or

2 -- Fill the pitcher up half way and dump it into the reservoir. Then fill the pitcher up completely and dump it into the reservoir.

Now, let's say it takes 10 seconds to fill the pitcher halfway and 20 seconds to fill it completely. Then, if you choose option #2, you have 10 extra seconds of filtering (because water reaches the reservoir after the pitcher is filled halfway, a 10-second fill, as opposed to the 20-second complete fill) so you end up filtering 120% of the reservoir's capacity instead of 110% of the reservoir's capacity. So, option #2 is the "more rational" choice. Would you then consider this thought-out decision to be one that you had control over making?

I view the real question to ask as why do we (generally) prefer that "more rational" choice? Personally, I can't answer it. I can explain the thought behind choosing option #2, but I can't explain why I prefer the efficiency, and I can't control what I prefer. I could say "because it gives me more water so that I don't have to fill it up as often", but I don't control whether or not I want to fill it up often, so I really didn't control choosing the "rational" option.
 
Nope. Chain of cause and effect, but the effects and causes aren't always easy to determine as they all get into one big clusterfuck.

Though the thought about whether free will existed or not didn't really have much effect on when I decided to be a vegetarian. What exactly is your reasoning there?
 
Until recently, I justified the separation of humans from other species based on our intelligence. Without free will, differentiating by intelligence doesn't make much sense. Basically, I now think of us as more similar to other animals, and so the fact that I consume life to live has become a bit more upsetting.

As I mentioned though, this isn't something I've definitively decided, I'm still sorting out these thoughts. I wouldn't be surprised if I became vegetarian in the near future, but I also wouldn't be surprised if I didn't.
 
I have free will.
Every day at work, I choose to talk to idiots. I choose not to inform them that they are functionally illiterate.
When I finish working, I choose to go home instead of a bar or hunting for pussy.
 
The factor here is cause - there is no "contra-causal" free will, as the philosophers like to call it. You choose to do something, but those choices are determined by various motivations that are out of your control, they don't come from within you, they aren't "uncaused."
 
[quote name='Koggit']
I view the real question to ask as why do we (generally) prefer that "more rational" choice? Personally, I can't answer it. I can explain the thought behind choosing option #2, but I can't explain why I prefer the efficiency, and I can't control what I prefer. I could say "because it gives me more water so that I don't have to fill it up as often", but I don't control whether or not I want to fill it up often, so I really didn't control choosing the "rational" option.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you. I was just saying in theory, free will/rational choice means people look at all options and weigh all options and choose the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. And people are assumed to be hedonistic so that's they way the decision making process works, as they'll always choose the option with the least effort/most pleasure etc. And if you want to change behavior you have to raise the costs to change the thought process (punishments etc.).

On the other hand, you have positivist theories that more assume people are blank slates and are shaped totally by their environment. Their decision making process is effected by everything they've learned/experienced up to that point, as well as the current context at the moment of that decision--where they are, who their with, their emotional state, are they sober or not etc. People in these theories aren't rational thinkers with 100% free will, they are pushed/pulled to make decisions based on their socialization to date the the current contexts.

I don't think it's fully one or the other. I think people are self interested from birth. But I also think socialization and current context has a lot to do with peoples behavior. It's not just a simple cost/benefit analysis as rational choice or deterrence theories would suggest. It's a cost/benefit analysis that's heavily shaped by the persons social history and the context of the current moment.

It's kind of that nature vs. nurture debate. Many say it's all nature--people's personality is shaped mainly by biological/hereditary factors and simple human nature. Other's say it's parenting and socialization that matters most and makes us who we are.

Studies tend to suggest it's both. Adoptive studies (including some of twins split up etc.) show that they resemble their biological parents much more than their adoptive parents--who they don't resemble much at all in terms of behavior, personality etc. So nature does have some impact. But what studies tend to find matters most is their peers--their behavior is best predicted by that of their friends and acquaintances. So nurture has a big impact, just not necessarily from parents. But at the same time, nature does matter as they still have lots of personality and behavior traits with their biological parents who they never even met.

In any case, it's an interesting topic--at least to me as a social science nerd!

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have free will.
Every day at work, I choose to talk to idiots. I choose not to inform them that they are functionally illiterate.
When I finish working, I choose to go home instead of a bar or hunting for pussy.[/QUOTE]

But that's not really 100% free will. You choose to talk to idiots and keep a job you hate as you have to pay the bills and feed your kids etc. You choose not to go to the bar or hunting for pussy as you don't want to put the kids through a divorce. From all you've posted, the marriage would have been over by now likely if kids weren't in the equation.

Humans do have control over decisions to some degree (what's called agency in the research), but it's strongly influenced by the environmental context. You choose to keep the job, not hunt pussy etc., but you're hand is largely forced by your situation. Change your situation and you're decision changes.

Some would still say that's free will as it's still weighing costs and benefits based on your situation, but much of rational choice theory etc. is too simplistic and downplays the complexity of human decision making by putting to little focus on the pushes/pulls of social context, social learning etc in shaping how people weight costs and benefits.
 
[quote name='SpazX']The factor here is cause - there is no "contra-causal" free will, as the philosophers like to call it. You choose to do something, but those choices are determined by various motivations that are out of your control, they don't come from within you, they aren't "uncaused."[/QUOTE]

Exactly. You just said in 2 sentences what I was trying to get at in my long-winded post. :D
 
Well I think I'm usually the long-winded one. I think rationality has its place, but yeah, what one thinks is and isn't rational depends on their environment - both what shaped their way of thinking over the years they've been alive and the situation itself (not to mention that even if someone was completely rational and able to expertly decide what caused the best outcome in any given situation, they would most likely be faced with an incomplete amount of information, making that ability irrelevant).
 
[quote name='Koggit']because you chose to prefer it?[/QUOTE]

Because I do whatever will get me the most amusement for the least effort. :D
 
I still don't feel like we're quite on the same page, dmaul. But that's okay.

I would say FoC had 0% free will in that decision, because he had 0% control over what he wants. Thought helps him predict what would happen with different actions, but he cannot change what he wants by thinking about it. He may think "what would happen if I went to a bar?" and conclude "I should go home, for the child's sake" but that doesn't exhibit free will because it's not clear that he has control over wanting what's in his child's best interest. I do not believe FoC could force himself to want to act against the interest of his child, he does not control his love for his child and so he did not control the conclusion to act in that child's interest.

Since I really think specific examples are the most interesting way to discuss this, that roommate I mentioned earlier with the sandwich: I like her. Like her as in I would want to date her if she were single. She has a boyfriend, who is also my roommate (five people live here and they, as a couple, are two of the five). So, liking her is generally bad. They're a serious couple, they've been together for a few years and will likely marry, I can think about possible courses of action and the effects and conclude that there aren't any situations in which having feelings for her is beneficial. So, I can rationally conclude I should not like her, that is, I don't want to like her, but I can't control it. I don't control how I feel, and how I feel motivates my actions, so I am not in control of my actions.

[quote name='georox']Because I do whatever will get me the most amusement for the least effort. :D[/QUOTE]

equivalently, "because I want amusement", right?

so why do you want to be amused? did you decide to like amusement?
 
Well how you feel is only one factor that motivates your actions, I imagine you haven't asked her out because of other motivational factors.
 
It's true that there are multiple factors, but every one of them can be traced back to something uncontrollable. Ask "why" enough and you reach "it just is." Not wanting to hurt her current boyfriend, who I'm friends with, is an example of one reason I haven't asked her out. But I can't make myself want to hurt her current BF, I don't control whether or not I want to upset him. I don't control the root of anything that motivates my decisions.
 
Uncontrollable sure, at the very least not controlled by you, not that the situation couldn't change because of you, motivated by some other factor that overrides your other motivations.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Uncontrollable sure, at the very least not controlled by you, not that the situation couldn't change because of you, motivated by some other factor that overrides your other motivations.[/QUOTE]

I think "because of you" is ambiguous here. Do you mean because of who the person is, or do you mean because of choices the person makes? As it pertains to free will, I think only the latter would be applicable. And if that's the case, then that seems contradictory to admitting decisions are a function of our desires and our desires are beyond our control.
 
That's a good example of how your socialization affects your decision making in that case.

Someone else in your situation may say fuck it and tell her how you feel and not give a crap about hurting the boyfriend etc. as their life course to that point has made them very self centered and the type to always go for what they want, everyone else's feelings be damned etc.

So it's not only the current situation helping force your decision, but also the way you've been raised that makes you not want to go after another guy's (especially a friend/acquaintance's) girlfriend, to not risk awkwardness with roommates etc.

Not everyone one's that way, take the various threads here that pop up asking if it's ok to date a friend's ex, or to go after a friend's girlfriend etc. A lot of people advice that it's not ok, and other's say that it is etc.

So everyone's decision is shaped not just by the current context, their current emotional state etc., but also by their overall personality, morals, values etc. that have been shaped by the sum of their experiences to date.
 
I choose to believe in free will because it's what allows me to take responsibility for my actions.

Also, good luck on becoming vegetarian.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I think "because of you" is ambiguous here. Do you mean because of who the person is, or do you mean because of choices the person makes? As it pertains to free will, I think only the latter would be applicable. And if that's the case, then that seems contradictory to admitting decisions are a function of our desires and our desires are beyond our control.[/QUOTE]

I just mean that you're also a cause, and that your current state depends on your current motivations, which could change.
 
twoface1.jpg

Also it just sounds to me like you're saying free will cannot exist because there exists such a thing as reason.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']I choose to believe in free will because it's what allows me to take responsibility for my actions.
[/QUOTE]

Saying that people don't have 100% free will doesn't excuse them from responsibility for their actions.

At the end of the day, people DO make decisions and have to be held accountable for them. But that doesn't require ignoring that a persons decision making is influenced by a huge array of things in their past and the current situation external to themselves.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Until recently, I justified the separation of humans from other species based on our intelligence. Without free will, differentiating by intelligence doesn't make much sense. Basically, I now think of us as more similar to other animals, and so the fact that I consume life to live has become a bit more upsetting.

As I mentioned though, this isn't something I've definitively decided, I'm still sorting out these thoughts. I wouldn't be surprised if I became vegetarian in the near future, but I also wouldn't be surprised if I didn't.[/QUOTE]


Were not very different from animals at all really.

In general women like comfort things like pillows, decorating, creating a home and so on which is basically just what female animals do and we call nesting.

Men are generally regarded as degenerate animals that will fuck anything and think about sex alot. Same thing with male animals, they have a desire to sleep with different females of their species to spread the seed around and try to propogate the species because unlike humans alot of animals die out within first week or so of being born for alot of reasons.

We build our cities and towns and tend to live in close communities for the majority like alot of animals will do.

Until fashion magazines came along and society took a rather bad turn and decided being fat is a bad thing and subject to being made fun there werent many skiny folks because everyone ate. Were animals, were meant to a little bulky because it protects our bodies and gives us warmth in the winter and a energy source. Now we try and deny what we are by dieting and eating shit thats mostly just chemicals in order to lose weight.

The comparrisons are endless really.

The only real difference is the limits of our needs vs animals. If human beings didnt have so strong a urge of needing then we would be living like the animals do, thats the only way were really different.

We need to feel important so we invent a god that created us just because he loves us. We need stuff other people have so we create bigger weapons to take it. We need faster cars, bigger buildings, more money, more recognition, more forms of entertainment, more rights, more control, more power, more technology and a whole bunch of shit we dont need. Hell even hairstyles are born out just wanting to be more like others or more different. A dog doesnt need more, he is happy running around and eating his own shit. Some say we have the ability to reason but all we reason are things we want and nothing more. Everything everyone does is based around some desire they have and nothing more.

And all animals consume life. Even herbavoirs consume plant life to live and a plant is still a living thing, just because it doesnt run around and go moo doesnt mean it isnt alive. Even microscopic organisms consume other life to live, thats the way the world works and how its able to survive. The strong consume the weak to strike a balance. And with human beings defying their animal nature with medications and surgery to allow people to live that shouldnt be alive by all standards and people not eating meat to live healthier (which is open to debate) and all those things we see more disease now than ever because nature is trying to thin our herd more. Were getting to big for our britches so along comes cancer, heart disease, aids and all those other lovely things to try and keep our numbers down.

To me there is no great mystery to things because were self proclaimed humans of evolution that are above everything else on the planet when were really just a group of animals that want more than we should have.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We do make choices, but we don't get to choose what our choices are.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Poor2More']We have COMPLETE control over the decisions we make but we do not have control over what choices put be forth us. [/quote]

It's like you're a stupid version of myke.
 
This question is completely irrelevant. That is why I remain agnostic when it comes to this question. I am pretty much a materialist, and I think everything we do is a product of chemicals...but are the chemicals controlling us or are we the chemicals. Either way experiences and decisions are being fundamentally controlled at a unconscious level so I guess I lean more towards no. But once again it holds no weight on the actual existential experience of making a choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice Myke, succinctly stating something I agree with, as usual.

And garg, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It's funny, I never had thoughts like that until a couple months ago. Not sure why I think differently now.

[quote name='gareman']This question is completely irrelevant. That is why I remain agnostic when it comes to this question. I am pretty much a materialist, and I think everything we do is a product of chemicals...but are the chemicals controlling us or are we the chemicals. Either way experiences and decisions are being fundamentally controlled at a sub-conscious level so I guess I lean more towards no. But once again it holds no weight on the actual existential experience of making a choice.[/QUOTE]

you realize chemicals (molecules, atoms, quarks, whatever) are nothing but parts of a man-made model we've created to formally express our observations (which are inherently limited by human perception), right?

it's a legit stance, i wouldn't argue against it or try to change your mind, it's a valid belief to hold, but personally i find it to be too cyclical to put much stock in. it seems like its using a product of our consciousness (observation) to explain our consciousness, when we nothing about how absolute our observation is.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have free will.
Every day at work, I choose to talk to idiots. I choose not to inform them that they are functionally illiterate.
When I finish working, I choose to go home instead of a bar or hunting for pussy.[/QUOTE]

Off topic, but when you go to a bar how do you "hunt for pussy"? I've never been into a bar. I usually get it from some lame chicks (rarely) through referrals. Is it easy? Please elaborate if you can.
 
I think I can make whatever choice I want but my mind (in theory), but my thoughts tell me not to make some choices based on consequences (and I listen) so in the end I only have limited to no free will.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Nice Myke, succinctly stating something I agree with, as usual.

And garg, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. It's funny, I never had thoughts like that until a couple months ago. Not sure why I think differently now.[/QUOTE]
troll thread confirmed

also, because you have no free will i know you will ask/wonder how this confirms this is a troll thread
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But that's not really 100% free will. You choose to talk to idiots and keep a job you hate as you have to pay the bills and feed your kids etc. You choose not to go to the bar or hunting for pussy as you don't want to put the kids through a divorce. From all you've posted, the marriage would have been over by now likely if kids weren't in the equation.

Humans do have control over decisions to some degree (what's called agency in the research), but it's strongly influenced by the environmental context. You choose to keep the job, not hunt pussy etc., but you're hand is largely forced by your situation. Change your situation and you're decision changes.

Some would still say that's free will as it's still weighing costs and benefits based on your situation, but much of rational choice theory etc. is too simplistic and downplays the complexity of human decision making by putting to little focus on the pushes/pulls of social context, social learning etc in shaping how people weight costs and benefits.[/QUOTE]

You're making the grand assumption that I can't change my situation.
On a small scale, I passed the CCENT last week. When I pass the next test, I'll have a CCNA. Even if I can't get a job at a Network Operations Center by meeting the requirements, I can pursue the CCNP. So, I'm either exhibiting free will or I'm in a cell that takes 2 to 3 years to reach the borders.
On a grand scale, I can walk away. There is no physical requirement keeping me from traveling to another state or country and taking a new identity. Do I lose my education? If I can fake my identity, I can fake my education. The only thing the government has of mine are my fingerprints, but those can be altered. Birth certificates, social security cards and state drivers' licenses have no biometrics.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I do not believe FoC could force himself to want to act against the interest of his child, he does not control his love for his child and so he did not control the conclusion to act in that child's interest.[/QUOTE]

2AM disagrees with you.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']2AM disagrees with you.[/QUOTE]

But that's kind of the thing though - you don't control that.

Say I have my best friend here, he's my friend because I can't think of a reason to not like him that outweighs liking him, that's just how it works. Say he shoots me in the stomach. I might not like him so much anymore, but that's because of something he did that motivated me to not like him. I didn't just come up with some reason out of nowhere. And even if I spent a day trying to think up some reason not to like the guy before then, I would have had to be motivated to do so by something for one, and for two: every reason I thought of would be some external cause I had no control over.

So I can't control whether or not I like the guy because I can't control any of the reasons why I would.

And to gargus - an A for effort, but you're basically getting into some pseudo-scientific religion there. I think you're stretching too much to get a simple explanation.
 
[quote name='SpazX']But that's kind of the thing though - you don't control that.[/QUOTE]

I choose not to control it.

I can end 2AM with a modest amount of effort or choose not to participate in it.
 
You don't control the event. I'm guessing you're talking about your kid crying or something similar.

It's not that there aren't ever choices to be made, but whether or not you choose one thing or another depends on your current state at the time, which isn't under your control, but is a combination of the current situation and every event throughout your life that shaped who you are at the time that the choice is to be made. Yes, you make a choice, but it's dependent on a sum of events that you don't control. For your choice to have come out any differently something different would have had to have happened to you, which you wouldn't have any control over.
 
[quote name='SpazX']You don't control the event. I'm guessing you're talking about your kid crying or something similar.

It's not that there aren't ever choices to be made, but whether or not you choose one thing or another depends on your current state at the time, which isn't under your control, but is a combination of the current situation and every event throughout your life that shaped who you are at the time that the choice is to be made. Yes, you make a choice, but it's dependent on a sum of events that you don't control. For your choice to have come out any differently something different would have had to have happened to you, which you wouldn't have any control over.[/QUOTE]

Is this some bullshit that claims I can't have free will unless I can control every molecule in my body?
 
How do you define free will? You have free will in the sense that some other person isn't forcing you to do something. You don't have free will in the sense that, given the same information and the same situation, you could ever make a different decision. That's why they call it contra-causal free will. You don't have free will that is independent of cause and effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top