Free Will (1171 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.84 on 44 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by K.M (View user info) at 2004-02-17 14:49:47 EST
We are born a clean slate. We die an infinitely complex prism, each facet the tangible residue of our experiences on this planet.
But that basically goes without saying, so what are its implications?
I am starting to see the illusion inherent to the concept of Free Will. Actually, I am starting to disagree with it almost completely.
Our lives may not be governed by some celestial, divine intelligence, but for all intents and purposes, they might as well be. Is it possible that the moment that tiny ball of mass imploded, and the big bang set the universe along its merry way, that our lives, with all of its choices and happenstance interactions, were already played out for all that they were worth?
It is obvious that a child's environment plays a fundamental role in the sculpting of its consciousness. But more importantly, for this post, the environment is the result of a trillion, trillion, trillion, subtle chain reactions before it.
An extremely brief, and selective illustration:
************************************************************************************************
A ball of infinitely dense mass explodes. Chemical bonding occurs. Our planet forms. The earth finds itself trapped in orbit around a star. The Hydrogen atom combines with two Oxygen atoms. The basic molecule of life was formed. Millions of life forms proliferate, and Man emerges on top of the chain.
***********************************************************************************************
Right? So, in essence, every life form was conceived the moment the big bang occurred. We act the way we act because of our environment. We communicate the way we communicate, we think the way we think, we love the way we love, we hate the way we hate, because of our environment. Our environment was formed the moment that the big bang occurred, the moment that the first human slammed two rocks together to make fire. The moment that napoleon's army killed some random soldier. The moment Hitler ordered 6 million people to their graves. The moment our parents were born, or were not born.
The moment that the big bang exploded, a few billion years later, I was going to write this.
The moment that the big bang exploded, you were destined to be sitting here, right now, countless years later, reading this shitty, vague post.
The moment that the big bang exploded, Queen Ashlee was going be born a wretched, worthless whore.
All of these things were pre-destined. They were set in motion the moment that the earth was trapped in a gravity field around the Sun. Is there such a thing as "Choice" when the world has already been set on its destined path? Are we free thinking, free choosing individuals, or are we the mechanized drones of destiny?
I choose the latter.
User Reviews
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-01 08:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The concept of causality is too Newtonian for my liking.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-02-17 22:43:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
KM, seriously. SERIOUSLY, I don't know *why* you are so fucking obsessed with me, but for Christ's sake, GET THE HELL OVER IT ALREADY. And don't tell me it's because you hate me or whatever, you're being a fucking child. At first, I thought it was cute how you just had to mention my name all the goddamn time, but it's getting old. Okay, you don't like me (or you really really do, and just can't admit it), fine, whatever. But your obsession with me is bordering on scary. You are clearly not a normal human being. If you so desperately need to bring me into things EVERY TIME YOU SAY ANYTHING, I think it's time you looked into getting some professional help.
Submitted by Yes (user info) at 2004-02-17 22:32:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HAHAH! Funniest thing I've read all YEAR! LOL!!!11!
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-02-17 21:16:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I've always believed that humanity does have free will, and that, like all good things, it is a gift from God and an extension of his love for humanity.
I think you could have done withut the potshot at Ashlee though. She's offered to send me cookies and anyone who does that can't be that bad a person.
Submitted by modusjoe (user info) at 2004-02-17 21:08:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with razor. We won't know the truth, so we can only make assumptions. I side with the most popular assumption: that we have free will and that human conciousness exists. Also, in a very much belated response to K.M; he said,
------------------------
It is your "choice", you think, to kick your computer? It would only be a synapse in your brain firing in order to follow through with that action. Your brain relies on oxygen, water, and other chemicals/substances in order to work.
-------------------------
Why would such a synapse occur? There would be no reason. It would be completely random. I can think of many, many completely random things in the world. Take genetic mutation, for instance. The whole theory of evolution is not that the enviornment causes evolution, but that the fittest survive. Genetic mutation is, in itself, random. Since I can find just 1 random thing in the universe your whole theory is kaput. But it doesn't really matter. To debate this question fully we must bring in the question of if we have souls or not, and we must, in effect, debate the existence of god. Lets just not get into that.
Submitted by Kaelic (user info) at 2004-02-17 20:55:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I read through some of this, but there's an interesting thing about probability:
The chances that it will come up tails are slightly better than heads. It's because there is slightly more metal on Washington's head. Think about it.
Deep thoughts by Kaelic.
Submitted by SixThousand (user info) at 2004-02-17 19:26:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I just like saying 'infralapsarian position.' So I like this post.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-02-17 18:51:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thjat being said I am going to join with Razor, and agree with the statement that the, capital T truth is ultimately unknowable. However, the question needs to be asked. The fact that we can ask the question itself is a different kettle of fish.
KM's post is an example of everything that Ubersite can and should be
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-02-17 18:47:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-02-17 18:08:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
My life is ruled by my dick.
Leave it to an Aussie to cut straight to the chase.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2004-02-17 18:08:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My life is ruled by my dick.
Submitted by someone (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:51:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
EHHH.
I agree and disagree to an extent, but have not the time nor effort to put into a good debate
as of now.
Good post however, whether i agree or disagree. this is how you present an opinion people.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:21:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Philosophy is the opposite of action.
Therefor, Philosphy == cowardice || waste of time.
Just live.
If you need to hypothesize, do it at night or while taking a shit.
That's my personal philosphy :P
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:17:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Because as far as I can tell I am self aware and have the ability to make choices. That's as strong as I can be about it.
If I don't have free will, I can't tell, and therefore it's moot.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:13:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And yes, I completely misconstrued your original mention of metaphysics. I just assumed you meant it to signify something less tangible then real, physical objects or cause and effect reactions. A sort of philosophical dismissal.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:10:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So if there is no possible conclusion, what makes you believe in free will?
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:09:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
K.M., here's the point about metaphysics:
Why do you believe in science at all? Why do you believe such an event as the Big Bang happened at all?
It's all part of the metaphyscial structure you ascribe to.
To even say that you're asking a question of physics implies a lot about your metaphysical opinions.
Example: If god created the universe 6,000 years ago and put everything in place, and he breathed into dust to create humans, and he gave us free will, then none of that physics matters one whit.
Personally, I think your hasty conclusions are quite possibly right. I think self awareness may also be an illusion crafted by billions of years of evolution. But fuck if I can tell you what that means, because I can't step outside of that illusion.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:06:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I already applied, and I don't feel like switching my application because it costs money and it's a ton of hassle. I will be either in London, Guelph, or Ottawa next year. My cousin is at Mcgill right now studying law, so i will definitely be in Montreal to check out the city once i move closer to the border.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:04:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I understand exactly what you're saying.
The fact that I'm typing this response could have been extrapolated from the position and momentum of every particle involved in teh big bang.
The fact that I made a typo just then could have been similarly extrapolated. I have no choice in typing this, or even the thoughts in my head - they're all the result of the neurons in my brain firing in a certain pattern which relates to my creation and the environment around me.
I've thought this through a million times, and there's no way to know for certain, so the question is useless.
You might as well ask my opinion on life after death. I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed, because you have to think something through to get to the point of "no possible conclusion".
But there's no possible conclusion.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:01:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well then, apply at Concordia. It's not as good as McGill but it's ok.
Montreal is considered one of the most happening city of North America.
I may sound biaised but I'm not from there...summer fuckin' rocks and don't worry about french since 80% speak english. Someone will always help you.
Consider it.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 17:00:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Razor,
What I mean when I say that there is a difference between metaphysical and the physical nature of the universe, I mean this post was made according to the knowledge that we have amassed about it, and not the philosophical speculations that you say render our knowledge of it void.
It is a fairly simple matter to me, for some reason, so I fear that I may be completely in the dark about some law that states that I am wrong. But until someone presents that argument to me, then I am sticking with these hasty conclusions. The big bang created the universe (allegedly) and the rest of it fell in to place in the patterns they were destined to from that point onward.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:54:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:35:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
"...control is not the same thing as probability. I can predict that half of the time when I flip a coin, it will land on heads. I cannot, however make that happen whenever I want to. Each flip is an independent event."
Perhaps, it is not a controlled event, but it is still subject to mathematical principles that were apparently established with the bang. The moment that you flip the coin, your flip is destined to be heads. Conversely, the next time you flip it, it is destined to be tails. Not necessarily in that order of course, for you can score a million heads before getting a tails, theoretically, but it is still simply a somewhat trivial upshot of the larger scheme of predestination I tried, and probably failed, to illuminate in this post.
And calaincourt, apparently Montreal is the place to be. I was going to apply to Mcgill, but the cut off grade of Ontario students for a shot at acceptance is like 89 now with the double graduation. Fuck that.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:54:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Uh... physics is a subset of metaphysics, and you can't remove physics from the larger metapyhsical context.
And as far as adding something of my own, like I said, all I can do is make an assumption. My assumption is that I have free will.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:45:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I see, you went across border to get wasted.
I'm 22. I know I sound like I'm 16 but my English needs A LOT of fine tuning.
I've got two cousins who work for the CSE (our tiny NSA) in Ottawa.
Very boring but beautiful city.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:35:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This should heat up nicely when the Christians find it. In the meantime and no I have not read the responses, is that control is not the same thing as probability. I can predict that half of the time when I flip a coin, it will land on heads. I cannot, however make that happen whenever I want to. Each flip is an independent event.
What the hell am I talking about?
What the hell are you talking about?
Jesus this happens when I have to actually work when I'm at work.
Submitted by SixThousand (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:35:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
KM, I think you're into a realm that requires math that hasn't been invented yet to prove it.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:34:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
that should have read "Lac Leamy"
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:33:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I am in sudbury, I just went to Ottawa to visit the university and get wasted with a few friends, we ended up at the "Lac Reamy" in Hull, since I am only 18. Hopefully I will be in Ottawa in september. How old are you?
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:31:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I loved that book. As if. I don't remember that quote though.
I am not in any way contemplating the metaphysical nature of the universe. I am contemplating the physical nature of the universe, and there is a monumental difference. And even if the truth is worthless (according to your friend Rene), it must be upheld that it is vital to investigate things before you label them as truthful in your own particular model. In this logical paradigm, and not the pedantic conclusions of truth that descartes concieved, do these speculations not seem truthful to you? And if not, then perhaps add something of your own, as its somewhat unbecoming of you to sort of sit on the fence like that.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:27:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
K.M., I reside in Montreal.
You ? Ottawa ?
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:20:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a major question which philosophy, science, and religion are still working on.
I can't remember this quote verbatim, but Heinlein put it eloquently in Stranger in A Strange Land when he said "Last I heard, predestiners and free willers were in double overtime with the score tied."
The thing is, as intruiging as this may be, in the end it's irrelevant. Give me a minute to explain.
First of all, the real question you're asking is: What is the metaphysical nature of the universe?You just can't answer the question of whether or not we have souls (or the equivalent) without knowing that.
Now, if you've read Descartes, you'll know that truth is unknowable. Even if you know it, you can't be certain of it.
If you've read Kant, you'll know that he tried to practically apply what Descartes figured out. He made a distinction between what is (noumena) and what we appear to be dealing with (phenomena).
Noumena are useless to us because we can never know them for certain. All we have to work with is phenomena.
What I am trying to say is that there will never be a definitive answer to the question of free will. So assume what you want, you're doing the same thing everyone else is, even if they try to cloak their assumption in seven hundred pages of logical equations.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:16:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caulaincourt, where do you live? I recall you saying that you were in Quebec, and the other weekend I got completely hosed at a casino in Hull.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-02-17 16:10:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for QueenAshlee mention
Submitted by SixThousand (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:58:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah.
I see.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:54:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I don't think that chance exists, in that sense of the word.
You are defining chance as a random results, right? While their may be no intelligent design that predestined the roll of the dice for you, it is predestined in itself. The sculpt of your hand, the surface it lands on, the spin, etc.
What I am saying is that the moment that universe was put in motion, even when it only consisted of large chunks of rock floating aimlessly through space, your path was already set.
That rock collides with this rock, this rock is on a new trajectory, it gets caught in the gravity field of this other nebula, it becomes earth. The rest is history. I just think that the moment this shindig kicked off, everything that happened afterwards is simply ripples and reverberations of the initial boom. Your life, and everything in it, even your very consciousness, exists for that reason and that reason only.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:44:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You could kick your computer, but the only reason you would is because you have a computer. the only reason you have a computer is because there were exponential advances in technology during the second world war. The reason that there was a second world war was because Hitler came to power. etc, etc, etc.
It is your "choice", you think, to kick your computer? It would only be a synapse in your brain firing in order to follow through with that action. Your brain relies on oxygen, water, and other chemicals/substances in order to work.
All of these things are the result of your environment, both your physical and chemical surroundings, but also that of your friends and family. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Submitted by SixThousand (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:40:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I like your take on the matter better than the religious interpretation, too. I'm not really a religious person, although I find it an interesting subject. Still, religion has the nice effect of taking away random chance, which your position doesn't really address. Do you believe in any sort of random chance, or no? For example, if I roll some dice, are the specific numbers that will come up predestined, or just the basic concepts and motiviations that led me to be gambling in the first place?
Submitted by modusjoe (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:37:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Time is considered a dimension, just like width and height, often times. But the fact is that it's extremely different from both. We are not mindless drones of "Destiney," as you put it. We have free will. If I wanted to kick my computer screen in right now, I could. But I don't. As for all of this talk about god, I personally beleive that he doesn't stop us from making our own choices, he simply knows what choices we will make. Perhaps this "destiny" that you talk about so much is, infact, god.
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:33:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That was an interesting read.
"They are destined to be good men and do good works. Those with only the normal amount of grace will have to accept or reject the gift of their own volition. The Catholic Church never accepted the idea that some men are absolutely destined to heaven, although they agreed with the idea that all men are at least offered the grace that makes it possible."
I think that the reason that the Catholic Church rejected that notion was because it also went against the principle of free will, something which is the staple of its spirituality. Now, I am no expert in theology, hardly being a religious guy and all, but it is my understanding that god gave us free will.
But I understand where Calvin is coming from, although I disagree with the obsessively religious basis of his claim. I think that some people ARE destined to be good men, and do good works. However, the formation of their [good men] ethical fiber is not found in spiritual supremacy, but in their environment, and to a lesser degree, their genetic composition. Both of these things are vastly beyond the small scope of "their own volition". They are the subsidiary effects of a monumental event some odd billion years past.
Submitted by dyerbm (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:17:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
K.M., your post as usual is perfection. My only problem with you is you don't write often enough. My complements(as if it maters).
Submitted by SixThousand (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:17:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Predestination is the concept that God knows whether or not you are going to heaven or hell before you die, and He knew even before the act of creation. Election is the process of being selected for salvation.
St. Augustine of Hippo was the primary Catholic theologian in matters of predestination, and his views were later commented and expanded upon by Thomas Aquinas. Augustine had a theory known as 'massa damnata'. This theory basically said that original sin alone, that being the sin of Adam eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden, was a large enough sin that all humans were going to hell unless God chose to intervene. However, Augustine believed that god wanted all men to be saved, and so he offered grace to all, grace being a quality one receives from God that allows one to behave in such a manner that one can be saved. However, he argued, some men are offered more grace than others, and these cannot escape it. They are destined to be good men and do good works. Those with only the normal amount of grace will have to accept or reject the gift of their own volition. The Catholic Church never accepted the idea that some men are absolutely destined to heaven, although they agreed with the idea that all men are at least offered the grace that makes it possible. (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, 2863) Augustine stood in direct opposition to the Pelagians of his time period. Pelagians believed that man does not need the grace of God to attain salvation, and therefore that he can redeem himself. The only type of predestination they allowed for was that God knew beforehand who would do so and who would not, but he had no hand in it. Thus, it was more a concept of foreknowledge than true predestination. Later on, Cornelis Jansen, argued in favor of double predestination. Double predestination is the idea that not only does God specifically predestine some people for salvation, he also specifically destines the rest of mankind for damnation. This is important because it states that God does not actively desire to save all of his creations, in direct opposition to established Church doctrine. Jansen was roundly criticized, and had little to no effect on official doctrine. Even though his beliefs in this area coincided better with Calvinists and other Protestant sects, he remained a devout Catholic.
The doctrine of predestination remained mostly unchanged after the Church accepted certain parts of Augustine's views until the Reformation era. Martin Luther, who was largely responsible for the opening of this era, completely excised the role of man from the act of salvation. He said that God, without any foreknowledge of a person, decided whether or not that person was going to be saved, and then he worked through that man to ensure that he acted in an acceptable fashion. Therefore, all good works and all salvation are directly attributable to God and no one else. However, Lutheran teachings denied that God specifically damned anyone to hell; damnation could only be achieved through the will of man, and there was no such thing as double predestination. Basically, all good things come from God, and if anything bad happens, one has only oneself to blame.
John Calvin is the name that most readily comes to mind when one thinks of predestination. As a religious sect, Calvinism had the strictest interpretation of predestination of all of the various movements. Like Jansen, Calvin firmly believed in double predestination. He explicitly stated that sin was preordained by God, and that Christ died on the cross only to save those already chosen by God. Calvin also believed in the idea that grace was irresistible; if God had chosen you to receive it and therefore be saved, you had no choice in the matter. You would invariably lead a life fitting a heaven-bound soul. However, much of Calvinist thought on the matter of predestination comes not from Calvin, but from Beza. He developed a view called the supralapsarian position; this position stated that God selected who would be saved and who wouldn't, and then allowed the Fall of Adam and Eve so that it would all work. This is an important distinction because it shows that God had always intended some people to suffer eternal damnation. This would mean God isn't really the nice guy the new testament would have you believe. Unsurprisingly, this rigid way of thinking on the part of the Calvinists led to dissenters in their ranks. After Calvin's death, the infralapsarian position was developed, which stated that God decided who would be saved after the Fall. This allowed for the belief that God originally intended all souls to be saved, which echoes earlier Catholic beliefs about the nature of grace. Most notable of the dissenters was Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch orphan. Arminius still maintained that a man could not earn his way into heaven through good works, like the other Protestants before him, but he insisted that grace was available for all, and one had to freely choose to not have faith to be condemned to hell. God would, of course, know beforehand who these people would be, but he did not preordain it. Thus, it was a conditional sort of predestination. If one does this, then this happens. The Calvinists immediately condemned this, and did so officially at the Synod of Dort.
So yeah. That's the religious take on it. Most of it comes from the ninth chapter of Romans, and just different views on the nature of God. Reading John Calvin and St. Augustine is a pain in the ass, and I hope I never have to do it again.
Submitted by SixThousand (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:06:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well written. I had to write a paper about free will one time. You're looking at it from a more scientific perspective though. Religious predestination is basically founded on the idea that since God knows everything, he already knows what you are going to do or not do, so you don't really have a choice in the matter. Which brings up the whole mess of knowing vs. influencing and whether or not it actually matters.
I choose to think it doesn't really matter either way. Things happen.
Submitted by quack (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:01:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
free willy was a wonderful movie.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-02-17 15:01:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WHOO! FREE WILL!! FREE WILL!! GO WILL!! WHOO!!
Submitted by WillZone (user info) at 2004-02-17 14:55:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Whew, I thought I was in prison and some one wanted to free me.
Thanks for the support.