Free will illusion?

[Lazarius]

Originally Posted by Renn

Yes but its the more radical side of the theory. ^^ )

I am a very radical man. *High cheekboned smile*

Originally Posted by Renn

Well we can't 'choose' our 'fate' or 'destiny'. But what I mean is that the free will illusion theory is saying that every choice we make in life... whether it be to study maths or to not get married, is determined already at birth because of your genes. )

Well, I do not place much belief in this theory as I find it impossible to understand how any cognitive future decisions could be omnipresent in genes at birth.

Well, you do remember all those theories regarding the fact that IF someone had advanced knowledge of any given event. and tried to change it, they would in essence be setting up the scenario 'causing' the event.

I wrote a post on another forum about what I called a 'tangent theory' - I'm still working it out and it has so many 'holes' in it as yet..BUT I settled on one distinguishing factor.

In a scenario as the one I mentioned above, where you had advanced knowledge of a event and tried to change it using YOUR OWN free will (Because you did not like the reality of it):

You are in essence doing an Act in the future, in order to TAKE your rightful place in the past (Or the present as we see it).

Originally Posted by Renn

I don't personally believe the idea as I'm more on the nurture side of what affects people when they are making decisions. )

I may just drop the scroll and post a massive Nature Vs. Nurture thread, if there is not already one. I plan to go in-depth about that.

Originally Posted by Renn

(ack, wanted to say more but yet again, have to go, to school. yay)

Well, get back from school soon, there is important substance to debate!


Lazarius

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Renn

I thought the whole theory of free will being an illusion is the idea that your genes...mean that every choice you make in life is already determined at birth. Free Will Vs. Determinism. That although I felt like I was making the decision to join a philosophy forum, my biological make-up meant that the decision infact, was an illusion because it was predetermined.

I suppose there are other angles to theories where free will doesn't exist but that is the one I hear most.

Ya, you shouldnt have seen the one that I spoke of, since I had just made it up when I wrote it

But a fact is a fact, and the truth is the truth

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Lazarius

Your genes only determine your perchant to wards genetic illness and predisposition to familial disease. There are many aspects to 'choice' (Not counting Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions).

Do not forget that people sometimes mistake 'free will' as only the inevitable, and often confuse it with concepts like 'destiny' and 'fate' which are also very different ideals.

There are unknown variable's that the gene's and Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions dont know, therefore making them flawed an unable to fully dictate your action's or control your action's from birth to death...

So I'm sure that are gene's dont hold all the finite amount of variable's that we would encounter from birth to death... nor would some one's table of quantum probability and decision's include all the variable's that a person could or would encounter from birth to death...

So it's safe to say that there all still just a "theory" and not a plain fact...

Albert. Einstein made a puzzle that was ment to show that probability is allway's flawed due to unknown variable's, and he also said only 2% of people that read his puzzle would know that, that's what it was trying to teach...

Dont know if you all heard of it, it's the one about "who own's the fish"

[No0ne]

Mainly it's out side interference that make's the unknown variable's...

Or a flawed analyzation of the situation, therefore a corrupted list is created of all the dictation of what you will do from birth to death...

It would be way diffrent if everyone was born at the same time...

Hence person (A) is born, then person (B) is born, person (B) effect's the life of person (A)...

Person (A)'s gene's didnt know that person (B) would be born and effect person (A)'s life...

So that very fact, show''s that and I quote "free will illusion theory is saying that every choice we make in life... whether it be to study maths or to not get married, is determined already at birth because of your genes" is false....

Sadly a simple mathmatical variable simualtion show's that the gene's could not know that the unknown variable's of person (B) would effect the predetermined life of person (A). (and also disprove's that theory of free will illusion)

Intelect

[socrato]

I don't get it. I can choose to eat whenever I plz, wherever, however, with whoever and whatever. Whats the problem, isn't this freedom?

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by socrato

I don't get it. I can choose to eat whenever I plz, wherever, however, with whoever and whatever. Whats the problem, isn't this freedom?

You freedom depends on the thing's that your allowed or "free" to eat...

Hence freedom has been limited by another or your self, or nature.

[GoshisDead]

Can you choose not to be hungry?

[de Silentio]

You can choose to cut out your stomach, therefore choosing not to feel hunger and choosing death at the same time.

[Holiday20310401]

Could you be hungry without other people to limit your hunger in the first place. Well rather the first thing needed is other people for one's own existence and virtue, the way a species and society functions nowadays.

So who cares if you re limited or tainted by the actions of others. One could not act without another action, otherwise at least, actions would have no meaning if it were to only be a prelude to another one of one's own actions.

So lets stop saying we don't have free will, it is like a positive illusion rather than false.

[GoshisDead]

The main problem with the debate about free will is one that stems from a judeo-christian judgment standpoint. If one is to be judged for ones sins then it is necessary that one has a non-causal utterly free will. This is not to say that their aren't influences (temptation) only that at the core there is nothing causing or limiting choice on a sub-conscious level e.g. genetics, habituation, upbringing, cultural norm and the like.

So if we are to allow for the sub and epi-conscious restrictions upon our will then of course we have free will, if we are not allowing for these free will becomes debatable because the aregument is traditionally not so much whether free will exists, it is what are the ramifications of doctrine and dogma if it doesn't.