Free Will Poll

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison No, the probability that any event will happen from a single cause is greater than zero. There's even tests to prove it. Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cool. So the probability that my sneezing will cause me to win the lottery is greater than zero?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Merge What in us allows us to exercise our control?

I doubt that anyone knows the answer.

I don't.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Merge So the probability that my sneezing will cause me to win the lottery is greater than zero?

Yes.

And there's also a greater than zero probability that your sneezing will cause a jet airliner to crash into your house.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Tycoon Hahaha, and now I'm telling you that you are pretty pathetic that you have to result to telling me my thinking is obsolete just because you disagree.

The double slit experiment proves that you're wrong.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison I doubt that anyone knows the answer. I don't.

My arguement doesn't require you to know an answer, just that you provide a possible answer. No matter what answer you give me, I will be able to show you that your "free will" isn't actually free (or at least I hope I will, otherwise my argument isn't as strong as I thought).

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison Yes. And there's also a greater than zero probability that your sneezing will cause a jet airliner to crash into your house.

Ahhhh! I'm not sneezing any more

Why does that claim require that you have a cause? Why isn't it simply, " the probability that any event will happen is greater than zero."

[Tycoon]

And there's also a greater than zero probability that your sneezing will cause a jet airliner to crash into your house.

No, because his sneezing will occur exactly as it should according to what caused him to sneeze and other factors like how he's sitting etc. Therefore, the way he sneezes will only cause a jet airliner to crash into his house if that's the way his sneezing occured.

[Aerika]

“A human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants.”

Arthur Schopenhauer

"If people freak at evolution, how much more will they freak if scientists and philosophers tell them they are nothing more than sophisticated meat machines, and is that conclusion now clearly warranted or is it premature?”

Michael Silberstein

The debate of whether or not we have free-will is deeply rooted in philosophy. I tend to lean towards determinism which suggests that every decision or action is pre-determined by our past and existing causes.



Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t - New York Times

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Tycoon No, because his sneezing will occur exactly as it should according to what caused him to sneeze and other factors like how he's sitting etc. Therefore, the way he sneezes will only cause a jet airliner to crash into his house if that's the way his sneezing occured.

You're way of thinking is obsolete and proven wrong.

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: Merge Well, for a quick answer, one difference is we can no longer consider any punitive actions to be morally justified. Another is we can no longer consider rewards to be morally justified. Pragmatically justified, yes. Morally justified, no.

And why would you ask a question whose answer may have implications that criminals shouldn't be punished when they need to be? I mean need like NEED, as in, society will cease to function if criminals all have their way.

Pragmatically, just because God knows all possible paths doesn't mean we didn't choose the path we're on. The question of free will is a silly one, for serious.

[Tycoon]

You're way of thinking is obsolete and proven wrong.

Like I said in the other thread, cut the bullshit. You can't say I'm wrong just because you want to. You haven't proven me wrong at all. You haven't proven anything.

And it's not "you're", it's "your".

[MplsBison]

The double slit experiment proves you're wrong.


Obviouly in your own mind such a thing is not possible.


I'll take the credibility of professors over you.

[Tycoon]

Again, explain and source.

And you think that's the way I'm acting? You haven't proven anything this entire discussion, and yet you continue to stick to your narrow point of view without making any attempt to see the other side of the argument.

[MplsBison]

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when electrons are fired one at a time through a double-slit apparatus they do not cluster around a single point diametrically opposite the emitter but instead one by one fill in the same old interference pattern with which we have now become quite familiar. However, they do not arrive at the screen in any predictable order. In other words, knowing where all the previous electrons appeared on the screen and in what order tells us nothing about where the next electron will hit.

If your way of thinking were true, then a single photon fired at a time toward a double slit would yeild only a singular exposure mark on the photographic plate.


But that doesn't happen.

[Tycoon]

I'm done arguing this on two threads. I'll stay on the Time and Space thread.

[Technosoul]

I got up this morning and had to use free will to select between wearing white socks or dark blue socks.

What had that got to do with being a believer in God or not?

To answer my own question.

Nothing at all.

[Merge]

Quote by: WakeTFU And why would you ask a question whose answer may have implications that criminals shouldn't be punished when they need to be? I mean need like NEED, as in, society will cease to function if criminals all have their way.

Why would I ask a question that has implications that our president may be deceiving the country? Why would I ask questions that may imply that a certain account of God is riddled with contradictions? Why ask any questions? I didn’t realize uncomfortable and inconvenient implications were reason enough not to ask a question…

Also, if society NEEDS to punish criminals, it can do so without false justifications.

Quote by: WakeTFU Pragmatically, just because God knows all possible paths doesn't mean we didn't choose the path we're on. The question of free will is a silly one, for serious.

My argument isn't based on God, it's based on cause and effect. Unless I have set up a false dichotomy between randomness and determinism, free will isn't even a coherent concept. Justifying the rejection of someone's claim based on an argument they didn't give is silly, for serious.

[Merge]

Quote by: Technosoul I got up this morning and had to use free will to select between wearing white socks or dark blue socks. What had that got to do with being a believer in God or not? To answer my own question. Nothing at all.

I'm not sure what this is in response to. Is it a response to WakeTFU's post?

Quote by: WakeTFU Pragmatically, just because God knows all possible paths doesn't mean we didn't choose the path we're on. The question of free will is a silly one, for serious.

[Merge]

Quote by: Aerika Arthur Schopenhauer Michael Silberstein The debate of whether or not we have free-will is deeply rooted in philosophy. I tend to lean towards determinism which suggests that every decision or action is pre-determined by our past and existing causes. Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t - New York Times

Great read, thanks for posting!

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: Merge My argument isn't based on God, it's based on cause and effect. Unless I have set up a false dichotomy between randomness and determinism, free will isn't even a coherent concept. Justifying the rejection of someone's claim based on an argument they didn't give is silly, for serious.

First off, is randomness a coherent concept?

Quick aside:
is the universe infinite or finite?
The answer is: move on, neither answer affects daily life.

I'd give the same answer to the question of free will.

Also, you claim your arguement isn't based on god, but suppose you don't have free will (which, by asking the question you admit it's a possibility) then who or what is controlling you? Your big toe? Remember, god is really just a word used to explain things we don't fully understand.