Do you believe in free will?

Question

My friend raised his philosophy theory today, and I felt compelled to ask it here:
He believes that in situations, such as me eating chocolate, under the EXACT same circumstances (hence no variables have changed), then we will do the exact same things again, if the situation occured again. Hence, he argues, the reason why we do not have free will. (His definition of free will is the ability to make any choice in the world we want to). He argues that we don't have choices because we do the same things over again in the same situations (if NO variables have changed, so if my mental state of mind changed and I stopped eating chocolate, that is not my free will because a variable has changed - my mental mind). He says I couldn't just stop eating chocolate, as a factor - variable - would have changed for me to stop. (It could be I saw I was getting fat).
So, what do you all think of this? It's interesting, although I only believe some of it because I believe we do have a form of free will

Answer 1

The problem, I think is in his assumption about things being "exactly" the same. If you think about things from that standpoint, then of course you would have done things the same. Unfortunately, he's looking at it from the standpoint of looking into the past. To our current knowledge, you can't change the past.

It's also outside the boundaries of reality to talk of creating things exactly the same. Things are never "exactly" the same. Even your mental state, which is a factor in free will, is never exactly the same. Each thing that happens to us affects us in one way or another. In other words, we change, however minutely, with each experience we go through.

When the time comes for us to make decision, we do. That's where the free will comes in. At that point in time, we can make any decision we want (within the bounds of reality, which includes limitation self-imposed by our mental state). That's our free will - the ability to choose.

An example is habits. We are not automitons, but we have habits, which are patterned responses to repetitive stimuli. We can break them, though it requires work. That work involves being more concious of what we are doing, so that when the stimulus comes (mmmm.... chocolate), we decide what to do about it (don't eat it). Successfully making that choice changes us slightly, making it that much easier to resist the temptation. With enough effort, and force of (free) will, we can break the (chocolate) habit.

Thoughts???

Response to Smahteepanties:
Free will has absolutely nothing to do with law. You are confusing will with natural (or unnatural, in this case, legal) consequence. You can use your free will to attempt to defy law (either natural or not), if you want to. That is free will.

Murder is illegal, yet many choose to do it anyway. Some get caught and are punished. That is a consequence of their use of free will to defy the law. Some escape and go free, which is unfortunate, but reality.

One can use free will to strap a bomb to their body and set it off. The natural consequence of this is dying, and being scattered in little pieces everywhere. The fact that this is a law has not stopped many people from doing it, but the consequences remain.

The only difference between defying unnatural (legal) laws and natural ones is you can't defy the consequences of natural laws.

Anarchy (the absence of governmental laws) does not necessarily make you more free. Under those circumstances, you are subject to the whims of others, which then become law - usually, survival of the fittest. That is until the urge to survive cause the fittest create laws to keep themselves in power. Even under severe environmental restrictions, such as an oppressive totalitarian government, you have free will. Unfortunately, most people don't have the will to exercise it, due to the consequences they may suffer.

Answer 2

First, his assumption re-plays a moment in time over and over again. From moment to moment, the variable of 'state of mind' changes. Also incorporated into that momentary state of mind, you have already made the choice to eat chocolate at that moment. He has created a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying, "You have chosen to eat chocolate, thus you wanted to eat chocolate at that moment, and didn't have a choice."

The question of Free Will vs Determinism(your friend's PoV) is a question that cannot be tested and answered definately.

Personally... I view events as an infinitely complex series of minute choices on a web of sorts. If you pick a moment X, every choice you make between now and X narrows down the possible actions or decisions that can be taken at point X until finally at point X, your actions may be determined. This, I feel, is free will, as you have made choices along the way. Each individual choice may be determined, but small variations on those things you can control allow you to drastically alter the outcome of those determined actions.

Answer 3

What's the use of having free will when the freedom to choose is restricted within the Laws of Government and/or Religion for that matter? If free will is what People say it is, as a freedom of choice and a freedom of will, then if One chose to commit murder, then where does free will stand with that individual? Free will has RESTRAINTS and it does come with a price, when we live by Laws, no matter what Law we live by or abide by. Now THAT is free will.

As far as your comments about eating chocolate and so forth? That's your RIGHT to do so. It's your body, no one can tell you what you can and cannot do to your own self. That is ONE thing that no Government or Law can ever take away from ANY individual.

My Opinion may be argumentative to some, but that's the beautiful thing of Freedom of Expression.

Answer 4

I agree with your friend. If no variables have changed we will make the same choice. What we refer to as free will, however does allow for changing of the variables. When we change the variables or considerations we then become "locked" in to the new "what appears to be, choice".

Answer 5

My apologies in advance for what is a long answer to a perenial thorny question.

There is an underlying assumption that there is no hierarchy to the consciousness. One might as well say a car has no free will, because drivers consistently stop at red lights. (A crude analogy, but I trust you see the parallel).

Scientists of the Renaissance declared they would not deal with any phenomena that were not subject to manifest and consistently repeatable demonstrations. Two and a half centuries later, those who have forgotten that past are condemned to believe that such phenomena as science declared itself not concerned to explore do not exist. (As if a man, blinding himself, declared no one could see, and that in fact the faculty of sight were but a figment of the imagination extrapolated by analogy with the other senses).

One consequence of this lack of scientific awareness is the assertion that consciousness not only expresses itself through the physical strata of the brain (nervous system in general), but in fact arises and is a consequence of phenomena within said system.

A highly cogent arguement against this being the case could be made by reference to Godel's Theorem, but even then it would prove, in the absolute, nothing: science never, in fact of practice, ever proves anything absolutely. Contrariwise, what it does is disprove the consistency and/or coherance of given paradigms beyond their associated boundaries of assumption. (All logics are founded upon arbitrary axioms, with arbitrary grammars/rules of permutation: there is further no one 'logic', as in the vulgar saying 'that is not logical', often used when in fact there is a logic to what ever it is being considered, but not one that is a preferred logic of the critic speaking).

In the case of your friends "arguement", it is an assertion whose assumptions rest largely unchallenged behind the bramble-vine of the dominant paradigm and entanglements of various logics within the misconception of a bramble-field that but one vine is growing.

The first manifest assumption (beyond the initial "There is no free will.") is that one, illusionarily, chooses the same external outcome in the same external and internal circumstances - which begs the question*, rather than proving something is different within the dynamic of the mechanism effecting the action, what is different when a different external outcome is 'chosen'. Our current technologies do not have a sufficient gradation of measurement to demonstrate that something is different, let alone the flow of what is different, let alone that the ultimate outcome is not arbitrarily (ie. by free will) determined from without the logic/mechanic of the system in question (taking the physical stratum as defining the limit of the system - ie. the brain-body complex).

So, as much as anything, one might suggest that your friend is demonstrating free will in asserting that free will does not exist. (*smiles*)

*Indeed, all this does is repeat in a different form the assertion that there is no free will - it does not even begin to establish a logic of what such a lack of free will in practical terms entails; rather, it establishes an ambience, one akin to the Mediaeval monasteries wherein such things as free will and determinism were debated endlessly.

Answer 6

Only when the body is in a healthy state.

For example. If you don't eat for a long time you begin to starve. Eventually all the parts of the brain shut down except the parts required for survival. You don't think, "Should I eat this" or "Is this moral". You operate solely on basic instinct.

If your healthy and all your brain functions are working. Then it is only limited to your intelligence, self control, and the laws of physics.

Answer 7

"i kNOW I CAN cHANGE ANY THING i WANT 2"

I CAN!!!!!


I CAN do all things through CHRIST who STRENGTHS ME!!__ I Bet your friend doesn't believe there's a GOD because he'S to far into science!!
I believe there's help for your friend__ I'm not in bondage__ JESUS CAME TO SET THE CAPITIVES FREE !!! HE came and freeD US ALL !___ WE MIGHT LIVE LIKE WE CAN'T CHANGE because WE don't BELIEVE __but it's a LIE!!! Free Will doesn't JUST mean FREE CHOICE it means the WILL to COMEOUT OF !!! CHANGE things that you've done a THOUSAND TIMES even if the variables are the same!!!>>

Answer 8

your friend has got a real point there, although i believe what he says has some truth to it. I believe in free will, we learn and that's what stops is from doing the same things over and over again when the same variables arose. well least that's what i think. our ability to learn stops us from repeating ourselves, we remember.

Answer 9

You freely choose to eat the chocolate in the first place. That is free will.

If you want to rewind and watch yourself keep eating chocolate then go a head. Personally I would use my free will to do something else more interesting, like trowing my girlfriends into my bed. Mmmm, now that I would enjoy rewinding and watching again and again.

Answer 10

We defiantly have a will....we want what we want.
Is it free?.......yes & no......, there are always circumstances, consequences and variables.
Your friend is splitting hair with semantics.

I do have a feeling that there is no such absolute free......just sort of free.

To me it is ok to say I have free will. (it is understoond that free is within reason)