Hazard

Wow, Thanks for all the responses! Very interesting

Hello again everyone! It's been a while. I've noticed that I tend to use different definitions than other people when arguing philosophy or theoretical topics. For example, I often drop by OL every few months with a topic on Free Will (as its something that bothers me often) however, earlier today, I realized that my definition of free will may be crippling my argument / the "successfulness" of the discussion. For example, today I realized how my definition probably differs from that of others: I can do many things, but don't. Most would say this means I have free will because I can. There is no mental block. I am free to do these actions. And I suppose that makes sense. Whereas in my own mind, I defined free will as what someone will do in the future, not what they are able to do. I do not mean to spark another debate of free will here, I am simply amused how one's definition of a word can corrupt a successful debate. Any thoughts? Sincerely, Hazard

Wow, I really like that. Thank you Brant. I may be over thinking it and at some point it is best to just be practical. Top-notch, Brant. I knew you could do it, if you moved to two-liners! Ouch! --Brant Lol, well, I'm serious. That was quite profound.

Wow, I really like that. Thank you Brant. I may be over thinking it and at some point it is best to just be practical.

I completely agree. Self-esteem is the result of achieving one's values, not the cause.

Morten, I've come across the same discovery. My life is much better if I act as if I have free will. I think that is what we are supposed to think or else we couldn't function right. Theodore, I am not merely arguing that we don't have free will. I am arguing that free will is doesn't exist. It is a circular square, an impossibility. The idea that an action could be made without a cause is absurd. The cause is, yes, our value system. But our value system also has a cause, some obvious and some not so obvious. The easiest way to see that it does have a cause is by inspecting our biological needs. Needs and wants translate to values. We don't choose what to need or want, we just do. I am in a weird predicament though, agreeing with Mortan that it is best to believe in free will. Ba'al, I want to. All the evidence (inspecting my own choices) points to a clear cause for all my actions. Whoa, wait a second! What if you all have free will but I don't? ~Hazard

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html Juan Enriquez suggests that in the not so distant future, we may be able to not only clone humans but to transfer our memories into those cloned bodies, thus allowing us to live forever. However, even if we develop this technology I don't think it will work and here is why: I'm not spiritual so I don't believe in the spirit or the soul or anything like that, but I think that cloning oneself and transferring all your memories would only server to create a twin brother or sister, a copy of yourself, but not yourself. I don't think that you will wake up to be in a new body. I'd just be a second "you" walking around and talking with all your memories. This leads me to consider interesting questions. If there is no soul, what is the "me" that sees what my eyes see and thinks what my brain thinks? Am I just the some of my biological parts? But who is the "who" that wakes up every morning? These questions are easier for me to understand when I see them in the light of the above mentioned "cloning experiment". The clone would think its me. It would have all my memories, feelings, etc. But I would still be me too. I couldn't wake up in his body. This leads me to believe that if there is no soul, no essence that IS the self, then I act and think as the result of the construct that biologically is me at any given moment. I could hypothetically be the clone right now and not know it because I have all the memories of the original. I might only be 1 day old and there is no way for me to know for sure because when I woke up I had all the memories of years before. Even though I don't believe in the soul, I still feel like there is something more. Why am I me and not somebody else if I am just brain waves? Who is the ME that experiences my experiences? Food for thought... Thoughts?

Hey everyone, I've been away for a while, very busy, but things have improved significantly for me. First off, I think the winter did quite a number on my spirits. So now that that is over I'm doing quite better. I got accepted to a technical college with a good scholarship and will be going there for Math. So things are looking up, -Jordan

Hi Silvana, In my earlier post I made a distinction between making a choice, and having the free will to make any choice. My theory in it's most crude state explains that people are more likely to do certain actions (like eat breakfast) than they are to do others (like cut off ones fingers). This can be seen throughout society, it is an observable fact - that people tend to follow a particular set of general actions. However, I take it a bit further. I lost my belief in free will when I realized that I could determine the cause of any one of my actions - even complicated ones. Either experiences, or emotions, or whatever you want to point to - I could see how they were the reasons that I did what I did. So I do think that my hypothesis has observable evidence that supports it. To answer your example, teenagers and popstars who do nonsense things to get attention are doing these things because they know it will get them attention. Thats the reason clear and simple. So, in response to your theory, again, I do believe in "choice" just not free choice. We, as humans, are constrained. The more complicated the decision, the harder it is to see the cause, but its there. I have been unsuccessful with defining free will concretely. Google defines it as: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion" However, I dispute the idea that our discretion is truly free. It is developed - nature nurture. If you were born in another country with another family do you think your free will would lead you to have the same values as you do today. I don't think so. I don't believe in a spirit, and I don't think that what you may call "free will" exists outside of our physical brain. We develop, we learn, we refine, but in the end our "choices" are a very complex method of sorting information and picking the best option at the time. Whether urges are driving the brain to choose cake or reason prevails to choose the salad. These things are learned choices. Simple logic decisions "I want the cake, but I will get fat if I eat it so I will choose the salad" or non-logic "I want the cake, i want the cake, i don't care about consequences" Anyways, that's my idea. Its still a work in progress -Jordan

Everyone, Thank you for the responses, I am absolutely slammed at the moment with work and school and I will make a well-thought out response just as soon as I can. Also, My real name isn't tied to this account so I don't think there is any possibility that what I say here could get me disqualified for a job. Anyway, in a few days when things slow down I will take some time to respond to you all, Thanks, Jordan

Thanks Adam, I will look into that.

Thanks Mike.

Ah, so he is suggesting that purpose and intent exist as a byproduct of free will. Well, Google defines purpose as: "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." And defines reason as: "A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.". If one asked, "what is the purpose of life (in general, not just human life)?" One could argue that the purpose of life is to sustain and continue its processes. Anything that lives multiplies and reproduces, its one of the qualifiers that allows something to be labeled as "life". If something that does not have free will (life in general) can have a purpose, then the argument is void because purpose is not a byproduct of free will. Purpose is simply and explanation for the reason or cause behind an action with respect to an outcome. For example, "what is the purpose of photosynthesis?" To sustain the life of the plant. It is the end that the action supports. That is purpose and that is independent of free will. Do you disagree? Ok, so are you agreeing with me? That is exactly how I am saying that decisions are made, per my previous post. Right, I still believe that we are responsible for our actions. Crime should still be punished, etc. Even though I don't believe in free will, I don't think anything should change about how we actually act. Its an odd conclusion that I've come to, I know. Not so, if the machine could analyse an infinite amount of information then it would know how this person would react to hearing any future and it would continue to foresee reactions until it found the future that the person would obey. -Jordan

Mike M., Thank you for the suggestions. I would be surprised if my problems were psychosomatic, but who knows? I go to a chiropractor/nutritionist who has helped me "keep it under control", but my problems aren't gone, just being managed. Out of curiosity, if it were psychosomatic, is there a way that I could tell for sure? A lot of my pain happens when I am not paying attention, which leads me to believe that it isn't. If it is, do you think that tai chi/yoga etc is a solution to psychosomatic pain. Thank you for the suggestions, Jordan

Dennis, I think you are actually describing my point (please, correct me if I am wrong). I am suggesting that "an event" / "choice" is the products of the complex operation of our brain using the "value hierarchy" to focus. This focus is not a choice, but a preprogrammed action in order to support the values. Just as a spider will "freak out" and run around like crazy when it feels threatened, its focus leaves making the web or what ever it was doing to concentrate entirely on staying alive. I believe this example can be applied to almost any living animal. Is this what you mean by focus? Mike M., What do you refer to here: "See the comments on 'Changing Your Name.'" ? Could you post a link? I can't find it on the forum. -Jordan

Thank you, I will look into David Kelly. You've brought up some very interesting points. To better understand your argument, can we define what you mean by free will more specifically(This may be self-evident, but bear with me)? For instance, when I explained this theory to my dad he said, "are you saying that we as humans are predisposed to certain actions, but still have the free will to choose between those actions?" That isn't what I meant, but that brings up an interesting point. Is this what you all believe free will to be. Predisposed, as in: we are predisposed to drink water and not poison, but within that predisposition, we have the free will to choose any non-lethal beverage? I would narrow down this definition of free will as: What we can physically do -> What we can mentally choose -> Our range of choices. For example: (We cannot choose to fly) - (Sane people will not choose poison) - (non-lethal beverages) Is this how you would define free will? By "want" I mean that my body has a predisposition to attempt to obtain water, just as plants "want" to grow towards the sun. Plants are physically able to grow any which way (I would assume - I am not an expert on plants), but the direction that they will grow is towards the sun. The fact that you are able to postpone the action of getting water only means that at the moment you value something or some action more than water. This is how I would describe how choices are made without free will: We start with automatic values (certain dispositions) as babies: Seek out pleasure, stay away from pain. These are automatic and branch out into more specifics such as obtaining food and pulling your hand away from a hot stove when burned (though this action is very clearly automatic, without choice, and the former is not clearly without choice). Then, though our lives we develop what I call a "value hierarchy", which can change from moment to moment depending on what is happening to you, but has an underlying structure. For example, the desire to drink water will go up the value hierarchy the longer you are without water, it will become more and more of a conscious priority. We have no control over how much our body wants water, though we can ignore the want until it gets too strong. This "want" for water is automatic, and not a result of free will. The "choice" to fulfill that want depends on whether there are other actions that you value more at the given moment. (The NASA mission specialists have enough self control to not itch because they have more important things to do, higher values). Therefore, I do not believe that I am victim to the fallacy of the stolen concept because the want for water does not stem from a free choice. Babies do not think "Hm, I think I will choose to want water(/milk) for the rest of my life." That "something [that] sorts them out", as you mentioned, I believe to be the simple process of rearranging our value hierarchy subconsciously through the filter of "is this good for me, or is this bad for me." For example, "Water is good for me, but I need to adjust the calibration of this space satellite more than I need a drink of water right now so I will wait to have a drink until I am done with this adjustment." Or, "I am dehydrated and haven't had a drink in three days, I will have some water right now rather than finish this adjustment." These look like choices from the outside, but I suggest that they are merely the highest momentary value taking precedence over what the astronaut will do. I will have to disagree. Something "matters" or "has significance" when that something effects an defined outcome. For example, sun light matters(has significance) in regards to the subject of the life of a plant. (Obviously it cannot matter to the plant, because the plant is not conscious, but the sunlight has significance relative to a desired outcome, growth and life). Continuing life is an automatic value for anything alive on our planet (whether that thing has free will or not), otherwise they would not have survived natural selection. By value, I mean "an outcome which the actions of that living thing are attuned to support". Grow towards the sun, avoid predators, eat food, etc. This value is apparent in living things that obiously do not have free will, cells for example - they multiply - an action that furthers life. I trust no one will dispute me on this. Therefore, I suggest that humans work the same way, just a billion times more complicated. If we are intelligent enough to perform introspection, and we question our free will in regard to how it helps us obtain our values - I suggest that it does matter because it will help us to determine how to better obtain the values that we have no choice in owning. *Bold addedWhy does the noise concern you? You did not choose to let it concern you. If that concerning noise caused you (or was the stimuli that caused you) to "put your book down, and listen more closely" I suggest the opposite, there is no free will involved. Dglgmut said: "Even if you don't have a say in what you want, you have a huge say in whether you get what you want." Yes, some people will be lazy and not achieve their wants while some will be dilligent; however, I still think that those choices are the results of billions of inputs filtered through our very complicated minds that will lead us to make these choices. Why do certain people exercise patience, diligence, and hard work every day while other people choose to be lazy every day? Is is because every day they make a fresh, uninfluenced choice to behave in this way? I think its more reasonable to assume that over time the hard worker has nurtured character values which molds him into the person that makes those same positive choices every day, while the other did the opposite. I hope none of you think that I am being obstinate here. You all are raising good points, but those points allow be to be more specific about how I think that humans make "choices". I have considered similar ideas before (the wine glass for example) and these are the responses that I have come up with over the years. The fallacy of the stolen concept is new to me, but I don't think it applies here as a "want" does not predicate free will (as I have demonstrated). Respectfully, Jordan

Dennis, Fair enough Adam, Very interesting, I did not know about this. Dglgmut, Ok, I see where you are going with that. "Self-awareness is pivotal to the existence of free will, so you won't find your answer without factoring that in. " I'll have to give that some further thought. That makes sense, but what I have observed about myself is that despite my best efforts, I have been unable to choose to do something ahead of time. For example, as an alcoholic can be completely intent upon not drinking and end up drunk later that night, so I have found myself determining not to do something later that day, while I ended up doing it anyway. This frustrating circumstance has been one of the biggest reasons why I don't believe in free will because I noticed that if certain events (stimuli) occurred, I was almost powerless to do something otherwise. This has happened to me over and over, the nature of addiction is one of my best evidences against free will, and yes I know addiction can be broken, but only if the circumstances (stimuli) are right. Enough pressure, and anyone can crack. Michael, Okay, that isn't exactly what I meant. I meant "how do you know the future is open ended" in the sense that "How do we know there isn't only one possible course for the future to take?" Yes, I do understand the nature of time, that isn't what I meant. Ah, I see what you mean now, you life analogy is very good. So you're saying that: because I can see the result of a free choice after it has happened, I interpret that to mean the choice was determined and not free because I am seeing it after the fact. Thats very interesting. I'll have to sleep on this idea to let it sink in. A follow up question for you then, how are choices made? Whenever I inspected my own choices I could say "This influenced me and that influenced me to do this." I reasoned that if there is a reason for why something is done/chosen than the choice isn't free because the reason caused it, right? My "drinking water example" for example. If I want water, and water is available, and there is no reason why I shouldn't drink the water, isn't the only possible course of action be that I drink the water? What part of me inside of me gives me the freedom to not drink the water when those circumstances exist. -Jordan

Michael, Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, you are spot on, this is exactly what I need to talk about right now. Well, where to start? When I was first introduced to Atlas Shrugged by my dad, I was a Christian. I was spending the summer dry walling his garage while listening to the audiobook and it was glorious. "Blown away by her vision" is an understatement. I was so happy to be exposed to someone with such a vision about the world. Rand believes that reality is to be conquered and adversity to be over come. And she doesn't rely on prayer or the "will of god" to allow this to happen. I took to Objectivism right away. But over the years I have found that there are some differences in what I believe about the world and what Rand does, which leads me to my predicament. As you know, Rand holds the opinion that men own the power to conquer adversity and shape the world. This vision was beautiful for me and I reached for it, but over the years I have come to see things more pessimistically. My chronic physical pain keeps me from doing the things that I am most passionate about. Let me give some background. I despised High School, so much that I almost dropped out 2 months before I graduated. (keep in mind, that I wasn't a bad student, I graduated with a 3.94 GPA - I just hated it, it was a waste of my time). So when I finally finished, I said "to hell with education" and left for Portland, Maine in order to "seize the day". I got a job with Best Buy and at first I thought things were going well, but there was one day that I remember very clearly. I was working as a cashier, which meant that I stood in the same position for hours at a time, and when I came home after a long day I had severe back pain. Over a span of two weeks it got worse every day, until one day I remember lying on the couch in my apartment feeling completely hopeless. I felt like I had the mind to "shape reality" but not the tools (my body). I felt like no matter how hard I tried, I would run into some brick wall. That problem was remedied when Best Buy let me sit on a stool between customers, but that thought - that I am not physically capable of taking on the world - has stayed with me. The fact is, I think that I do have a vision, but its been so long since I've thought about it that I've lost my grasp on it. This hopelessness has stayed with me and ground me down to the point where I hardly ever look towards my vision with anticipation. I know its cliche to say "believe in yourself" but this is exactly what I am struggling with. I don't believe in my self, and not for a lack of trying, but because whenever I try something, an external adversity steps in my way like my physical pain. So now I find myself, having completely forgotten about my dreams, just floundering around. Also, I happen to be highly emphatic which means I feel guilty for hating my life because other people have it worse off then I do. How fucked up is that? Anyway, I feel trapped. I haven't felt the exhilarating feeling of taking on a challenge with confidence in a long time. Thanks for bearing with me, Jordan P.S. what do you mean by "I am working on a project about it right now."?

Dennis, I do believe that our choices are dictated by our values, additionally, I believe that our values are "chosen" for us. Sane humans value food, for instance. We have no choice in the matter. You are unable to choose to stop valuing food. Ba'al, Ah, thanks for the explanation. Michael, I see what you are saying here, but I don't see how you are backing up these statements. Where does reality say that future is open-ended? As for my time-travelling. I'm not looking at the future so much as I am looking in the past and thinking "My choice was determined. I drank water because I was thirsty" The "child" example is exactly how I view our (adults) ability to make choices - our values are determined by the pleasure pain mechanism, which influences our future choices. Adults are just much more complicated than children so it is harder to see what causes their choice. "Free will, in nature, is the responsibility on oneself to choose in order to survive."? I agree, which is why we don't have free will because we are programmed to choose to survive (in most cases). If door 1 = survive and door 2 = die, most humans are programmed to "choose" to survive. Therefore - its not a free choice. Yes, I did make this thread because I am trying to take control of my life and maximize my potential so I am hoping some of you will help me find a way that I can understand how free will is real. I would use this example as a support against free will. Something inside of you gives you a negative reinforcement to the thought of gaining weight (almost like how pain works), therefore you choose not to eat the good tasting cake because you value ​not being fat over eating cake. Its a simple value assessment. Which want has more sway over your mind? The want to be fit? or the want to have cake? Whichever is more potent will cause your choice. Mike M. Not sure what you mean by that. I'm not trying to be hostile and change anyone's mind. I was actually hoping one of you would refute me in a way that I could agree with, as I stated above. PDS, Hrm, the fallacy of the stolen concept is new to me. Are you suggesting that the fact that I wrote this thread proves that I do have free will? If so could you elaborate? I don't believe that intelligence denotes free will. Google defines "intelligent" as: "Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations". A plant can "intelligently" grow twords the sun, but there is no free will there. Just as a computer can choose to execute a command if the "if-statement" is fulfilled. Neither of these examples use free will to choose to use intelligence. -Jordan

Michael, Well, here's my situation: I'm 20 years old, a Freshman at Community College, and living with my Dad. I skipped my first year of college in order to work and get a feel for life. To be honest, I hate formal education. The thing I hate the most is wasting time and I am a very good self-teacher, so college and I don't mix; but here I am in college because I don't really have another choice - retail isn't taking me anywhere. I have many health problems: chronic back and neck pain and tendonitis. I'm at school part-time and I still work part-time at Best Buy, but I am not finding any satisfaction at either. My parents are divorced and I hardly ever get to see my friends anymore between school and work. In general, I'm depressed and I feel like I'm just being pushed from one meaningless task to another. Adam, If you have any advice regarding the former passage I'd be happy to hear it. Mike M, As a former Christian, I have taken interest in philosophy because it has helped me form a standard by which I live my life. I believe that men can be moral without divine instruction and I believe that philosophy and reason are the ways to accomplish this.

Hi Adam, Its good to be back. Yes I am still in Michigan, but I am not voting on Tuesday. As much as I know I should - my life is far to chaotic right now to spend the time to make an educated vote. To be honest, I didn't even know there was a vote on Tuesday. Hi Brant, Back when I first joined I was a fresh Objectivist and discovering myself philosophically for the first time. Now, I've got some real life experience under my belt, and I've seen some (only some) of the punishment that life can dish out. Unfortunately, I am much less optimistic than I was back then. I haven't done very much thinking lately (whereas back then, I did all the time), so I'm hoping that OL can bring me back to the old me (in some respect). I liked who I was then a lot more that who I am now. Jordan

In the past I have received many fiery responses from this idea, so I will try to be as concise and clear as I can. (Please let me know if the analogies help to get my point across or if they are a waste of space) My Theory: I do not believe in free will, even though I want to. There is a very important distinction in the topic of free will that most people miss: the difference between what one can do and what one will do. I can take the door on the left or the one on the right. But I will choose only one. I therefore suggest that whatever causes me to choose the left or the right (or to walk away from both doors) decides for me what I will do - despite the fact that I physically can walk through either door. Therefore, because our actions or choices have a cause (at lease, I believe that they do - I will explain further), we are unable to control the effect (our choice). Not only do I believe that we do not have free will, but I believe that free will is just as much an impossibility as a circular square. I believe: Choices are determined by external stimuli (any information we receive through our senses) and the internal machine (our brain: memories, previous conclusions, etc.) which result in the output (the choice). Just as a calculator takes in numbers (external stimuli) uses those numbers in its internal machine (brain) and outputs a result (the "choice"). Each human is a different "calculator" with a different internal machine (which is why people respond differently to the same stimuli). The History: I first began to doubt free will when I noticed that certain actions of mine were heavily influenced by(or caused by, as I believe now) certain things that happened to me (stimuli). For instance, when I'm very thirsty (and if I have water available) I drink. Now, my critics might say "Yes, but you could have chosen not to drink." But again I point to my distinction between can (could) and will. If I have no reason not to drink water,and I have a reason to drink water, and I have water available to me, then I will drink water. I have no choice. This theory developed simply through observation. Believe me, I want to believe in free will, but the evidence just doesn't add up. Think of an experiment designed to test if people have free will: As we know in experiments, all variables are isolated except for the ones we are testing for, so that the result of the experiment is not influenced by something that was not being measured. Therefore, in this experiment we will assume that the human subject remains in the exact same state of mind in each scenario. Presented with the same stimuli and no memory of the experiment previously, one can imagine that the subject will repeat the same "choice". "Door number one contains a fruit basket. Door number two contains a stapler. Please choose one:" Jordan picks door number two because he wants a stapler and is indifferent to fruit. Yes, he can pick either door, but he will pick #2 because his want of a stapler and the absence of any reason to not pick that door dictates that he pick door #2. I am anxious to hear what you all think of my theory. Please feel free to criticize and rip it to shreds if you want to, I am more than happy to refine or discard ideas if I am wrong. Respectfully, Jordan Edit: The "anti-proof"?: I just remembered that in Math, you can prove something to be true by proving the opposite impossible (or something like that my memory is a bit fuzzy)? (If not A, then A; right?) So, assuming that free will is possible, that would mean that it is capable to make any choice regardless of any present stimuli. For example:I will choose to cut off my fingers even if I have no reason to (including the reason to prove that free will exists, for those of you who want to be extra difficult ; ] ), and I do not want to. As we all know from experience, in no universe would a sane human do something that they don't want to do if they also have no reason to do it. Not sure how sound that reasoning is, but it just came to me so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Hello everyone! I'm going to reintroduce myself because its been quite a while since I've been on this forum. My name is Jordan. I first found out about Objectivism when I was about 16 - I started out a little over zealous, but my beliefs and standards are much more defined now. I call myself an Objectivist, though I disagree with Rand on some inconsequential points, because Objectivism is the closest philosophy that I can identify with. I greatly admire Rand and the intellectual leaps she has made. I am also an Agnostic - formerly Protestant Christian. I am 20 years old now, and still struggling to find my nitch in life. I am back on the forum because things aren't going too well for me, and I feel like I could use some intellectual stimulation. I am looking forward to the discussions and debates! Also hoping to possibly get some advice from you folks who have been around the block a few times more than me. Regards, Jordan

Michael, I misunderstood what you meant by charity. I definitely agree with helping those who you care about and who will not be a leech. Kat, I also understand the type of giving that you explained. Thank you all for the insight and thank you Jerry for the references. I will look into those. Jordan

Michael, I still believe that it is one or the other. No matter how many children I save, there will always be more; and the second I choose to buy an extra cup of coffee, I make the value decision that I want that coffee more than I want to save the next child. I was surprised that you said Rand practiced charity. Doesn't that go against everything she stands for? Could you please give me some examples of her charity? Brant, Thank you for your honesty, i suppose i should have spend more time figuring this out on my own before asking you. Jordan