A chellange to anyone who think free will exists

Post Reply New Topic

For those who think free will exists:

1) Are you saying that the laws of physics does not hold in our brain?
2) If yes then how the free will is supposed to interact with physical objects? Such theory would be verifiable / falsifiable by scientific observations. So
3) Any scientific evidence to support your free will - matter interaction theory?

I don't subscribe to the concept of free will,
but I think we exist within such an infinitely-complex illusion of it that it makes the distinction irrelevant in terms of the human condition and ethics.

very well put

You know what's the ultimate challenge for proponents of the free will theory?

What the f*ck is free will?

Free will means you're free to do whatever you like, within the confines of the physical world you inhabit.
One is limited only by gravity, time, and other forces of nature.
imho

So do I have the free will to kill the people I hate? If so, why haven't I chosen to do it even once after all these years?

Why do you challenge? Why do you not teach, or learn, or lecture, or discuss?

1. I just said of course the laws of physics hold in MY brain -though I think physicists will tell you the laws they currently recognize are not all and only the laws of physics that apply in the brain.

2. What idiot intimated that free will interacts with physical objects? Are you confusing this with God's will which creates and mantains and arranges physical object? Human will is not God's will.

3. There CAN be no evidence to support an absurdity that none maintains. And since you - I am sure - hold to a definition set which restricts "scientific" to the output of materialistic physical sciences, by definition there can be no scientific evidence of my will or God's will.

But then - where is the [we will use your definition] scientific evidence that your actions are totally predictable in terms of biochemistry?

Is that too much to ask from one who boldly challenges? A challenger must be PRETTY sure of his ground.

MCalavera - Yes, you could choose to kill someone. You could also choose not to kill anyone. Free will does not take legality or consequences into consideration. It simply means that God does not move you around like a puppetmaster.

The concept of Predestination is a religious one, in that there exists a fundamental belief that God had already determined who would be saved and who would not, even before the universe came to be. It also means that thou shalt have no control over thine actions if thou believest in God.

Thus, to say that Free Will exists is to go against the arbitrary dogma of religious fanatics. Free Will also means that people are free to choose to leave the Church, or never enter one to begin with. This makes the belief in Free Will a heresy, and the exercise of Free Will a sin. Thus we have the rampant denial of Free Will, and the push to make more people believe in Predestination.

We can't have people exercising their Free Will to leave the Church, now can we?

Yes, you do. That's the whole basis of judicial systems- the assumption that any crime you commit is something you have chosen to do of your own free will. Free will doesn't mean there will be no consequences. It means you make the choice.





That's something for only you to know. The whole point of choice and free will means that you are free not to do something as well, if you don't want the consequences that come with doing it.

But if I can choose to kill someone, what's been stopping me from freely choosing to do so? if it's a free choice, why am I being hindered/prevented from choosing it freely?

I choose not to believe in any higher power.

There's your free will.

And our minds can control things. Your brain tells your arm to reach and your hand to open and grasp to pick something up. Free will.

Doesn't this mean that my wariness of the consequences prevents me from freely choosing to do something that would result in those consequences?

How is this a free will?

I don't see how this supports free will, though.

The commands of your brain are controlled by genes and such.

It's free will because you made a choice that you don't want those consequences. "Freely" doesn't mean "free of consequences". Every choice has consequences. It means you choose whether to do it or not. It sounds like you are taking "free" to mean "consequence-free" when it actually means "able to make a choice".

You aren't prevented from freely choosing something that has legal consequences. People do it all the time. They take the risk in the hopes that they won't be caught. Or they decide that doing it is so important to them that they accept the consequences (suicide bombers).

That's where things get trickier. At the macro level, we are free to decide to do or not do things. At the micro level, our decisions are nudged in one direction or another by the brains we were born with. The intersect of these two forces is where law has to decide how culpable a particular person is for a particular crime. I don't think free will is absolute. This free will debate always gets framed as an either/or proposition. Either we have absolute free will and control all our decisions or we have none at all and are total puppets of our genes (or God's plan, if that's your religious bent). I think the actuality is between those two extremes. Law recognizes this and tries to find the balance when somebody is on trial.