What is free will?

[Chewy]

It doesn't meeter if you fallow instincts directly or indirectly the result is the same, it's like if I ware to decide to kill someone just because I don't like him,  it doesn't meeter if I kill him in middle of street with an axe cutting him in little pieces or just shoot him in a head with a gun without witnesses,  in the end result is that I killed someone just because I don't like him, in one case I am likely to go to prison in other I might get away with it but it doesn't change a result that I killed someone just because I don't like him. It the same for instincts it doesn't meter if you fallow them directly right at a moment or indirectly the result stays the same and that is that you live by fallowing instincts and not using intelligence.

 

 

 

Isn't it the same with most of conversations people have.

Not sure if you cant spell "matter" or constant typo

 

However, this is similar to my point of view.

[crunchytaco]

In general, I dislike discussing about the so called 'free will', lots of theories are made, lots of theories fail, some get credibility, some are believed to be true by people, but we just can't really prove it. 

 

 

I also don't quite like this topic because no matter what anyone says, we don't know for sure. At the end of the day, we can argue all we want, put down other's ideas but still not know for sure. For all we know, everyone is wrong.

 

I think it's taken for granted these days that we can so freely discuss ideas when it was once nigh impossible without a death sentence upon your head. The free discussion of free will was in many thanks to counter theorists challenging the authority of village witch doctors and priests. Millenniums later, we still have witch doctors and priests trying to remove evolution from public U.S. schools because they also posit that we can't know for sure.

 

Don't let not knowing discourage you guys . The more you know the less you understand.

[Chewy]

I think it's taken for granted these days that we can so freely discuss ideas when it was once nigh impossible without a death sentence upon your head. The free discussion of free will was in many thanks to counter theorists challenging the authority of village witch doctors and priests. Millenniums later, we still have witch doctors and priests trying to remove evolution from public U.S. schools because they also posit that we can't know for sure.

 

Don't let not knowing discourage you guys . The more you know the less you understand.

I dont live in the US anyway, we are freely expressing our opinion arent we?

[Flutterz]

It doesn't meeter if you fallow instincts directly or indirectly the result is the same, it's like if I ware to decide to kill someone just because I don't like him,  it doesn't meeter if I kill him in middle of street with an axe cutting him in little pieces or just shoot him in a head with a gun without witnesses,  in the end result is that I killed someone just because I don't like him, in one case I am likely to go to prison in other I might get away with it but it doesn't change a result that I killed someone just because I don't like him. It the same for instincts it doesn't meter if you fallow them directly right at a moment or indirectly the result stays the same and that is that you live by fallowing instincts and not using intelligence.

Then all people follow their instincts because they want to eat. And don't give me "it's necessary to survive", first of all we already do a lot of unnecessary things, whether they're instincts or not doesn't matter, and second of all if you really want to follow as few instincts as possible, there are alternatives to eating http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/healthcare-management/end-of-life-issues/artificial-hydration-and-nutrition.html

 

And now we're derailing the thread again. >.>

[Ayana]

Flutterz wins, as free will is defined as such and works that way from a logical standpoint. Trying to explain what that is made of in a philosophical way (which is pretty much the only road I like to take in discussion) is going to be really annoying if you want to avoid weird tricks in logic (which are not really tricks).

"5.135: In no way can an inference be made from the existence of one state of affairs to the existence of another entirely different from it.

5.136: There is no causal nexus which justifies such an inference.

5.1361: The events of the future cannot be inferred from those of the present. Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus.

5.1362: The freedom of the will consists in the fact that future actions cannot be known now. We could only know them if causality were an inner necessity, like that of logical deduction. — The connection of knowledge and what is known is that of logical necessity.


6.37: A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity.

6.371: At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.

6.372: So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate. And they both are right and wrong. But the ancients were clearer, in so far as they recognized one clear conclusion, whereas the modern system makes it appear as though everything were explained.

6.373: The world is independent of my will.

6.374: Even if everything we wished were to happen, this would only be, so to speak, a favour of fate, for there is no logical connection between will and world, which would guarantee this, and the assumed physical connection itself we could not again will.

6.375: As there is only a logical necessity, so there is only a logical impossibility."  -- Ludwig Wittgenstein (taken from his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)


In order to make a decision, even a whimsical one, we have to obtain "something" (an object) to build it upon. That "something" was already there, yet we'll always have to modify it in our own way of understanding, restating it in our language (it therefore becomes a subject). Doing this then requires a logic-based method of questioning and/or skepticism that we humans are especially noted for, since we've had to build it like a structure over the ages. Each method of logic for each individual is different (despite the communal one, which only comes second), so then each decision enacted out is also equally as different.

What follows everything thus far to now is the modernistic views of things, which are terribly "artificial" and conflicted. We got the individual logic which is very much what could be called "superstitious" by the communal logic, and vice versa. "Free will" is a valid concept, but only by definition. The modern view of it is having the misconception through the word "free" which thinks it's meaning is to encompass everything. Yet we'll then deny that through an argument with our own self after remembering that we can't suddenly "fly in the sky with the flapping of your arms, like what a bird seems to do." Free will is an illusion because humans will only pretend they have it based on their misconception through language, and then later affirm it as an act through denial. This in itself is not what free will consists of, but only can fall into the boundaries of its definition, which is something agreed upon. The words speak for themselves, not the people.

 

[Okami]

Then all people follow their instincts because they want to eat. And don't give me "it's necessary to survive", first of all we already do a lot of unnecessary things, whether they're instincts or not doesn't matter, and second of all if you really want to follow as few instincts as possible, there are alternatives to eating http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/healthcare-management/end-of-life-issues/artificial-hydration-and-nutrition.html

 

And now we're derailing the thread again. >.>

 

It does meter if unnecessary things we do we do because we decided with our intelligence our just because our instincts tells as to. In one case we are intelligent beings capable of thinking and making decisions with free will in other case we are just animals fallowing their instincts without free will as free will comes from having and using intelligence.

Things that are simply necessary to sustain our bodies like eating and sleeping are just necessary doing necessary things doesn't mean you fallow you instincts like when you fallow instincts in doing things that are not necessary.

 

While there are alternatives to eating they are just alternatives so you still need to get energy in your body somehow how you do it doesn't change it. You don't need an alternatives for having sex as sex is not necessary and unlike unnecessary things you do because of reasons that come from your intelligence sex is just instinct.

 

And we are not derailing the thread what we are talking here is about a topic "What is free will" as if we say that you need to have and use intelligence in order to have a free will we also need to say what really using intelligence means.

[Flutterz]

It doesn't meeter if you fallow instincts directly or indirectly the result is the same, it's like if I ware to decide to kill someone just because I don't like him,  it doesn't meeter if I kill him in middle of street with an axe cutting him in little pieces or just shoot him in a head with a gun without witnesses,  in the end result is that I killed someone just because I don't like him, in one case I am likely to go to prison in other I might get away with it but it doesn't change a result that I killed someone just because I don't like him. It the same for instincts it doesn't meter if you fallow them directly right at a moment or indirectly the result stays the same and that is that you live by fallowing instincts and not using intelligence.

 

 

It does meter if unnecessary things we do we do because we decided with our intelligence our just because our instincts tells as to. In one case we are intelligent beings capable of thinking and making decisions with free will in other case we are just animals fallowing their instincts without free will as free will comes from having and using intelligence.

Things that are simply necessary to sustain our bodies like eating and sleeping are just necessary doing necessary things doesn't mean you fallow you instincts like when you fallow instincts in doing things that are not necessary.

 

While there are alternatives to eating they are just alternatives so you still need to get energy in your body somehow how you do it doesn't change it. You don't need an alternatives for having sex as sex is not necessary and unlike unnecessary things you do because of reasons that come from your intelligence sex is just instinct.

 

And we are not derailing the thread what we are talking here is about a topic "What is free will" as if we say that you need to have and use intelligence in order to have a free will we also need to say what really using intelligence means.

- In the first post I quoted you say that it doesn't matter if you follow instincts directly or indirectly, in other words even if you use your intelligence to decide to do something that your instinct would want you to do, that's still following your instinct.

- In the second post I quoted you say that free will comes from using your intelligence and not following instincts.

 

If we put the two together we get that in the case of sex, people who use their intelligence and therefore exercise their free will can only choose to not have sex, because if they choose to have sex then by your definition they aren't using their intelligence, therefore not exercising their free will and therefore they aren't really making a choice.

 

But if your so-called "free will" only allows you to make one of two choices, that's not really free will, so you've got a bit of a contradiction there.

[Guest]

Shiro neko. I haven't heard it described that way before. By definition, all animals must have free will as well? 

Yes, according to the definition I gave all animals would have free will.

[Okami]

- In the first post I quoted you say that it doesn't matter if you follow instincts directly or indirectly, in other words even if you use your intelligence to decide to do something that your instinct would want you to do, that's still following your instinct.

- In the second post I quoted you say that free will comes from using your intelligence and not following instincts.

 

If we put the two together we get that in the case of sex, people who use their intelligence and therefore exercise their free will can only choose to not have sex, because if they choose to have sex then by your definition they aren't using their intelligence, therefore not exercising their free will and therefore they aren't really making a choice.

 

But if your so-called "free will" only allows you to make one of two choices, that's not really free will, so you've got a bit of a contradiction there.

 

No I haven't you just didn't understand the first post, If you fallow your instincts because of satisfying them it doesn't meter how you do it, if you do it only with fallowing instincts directly or with help of intelligence the result is the same and that is that you are just following your instincts. You can choose with your intelligence to have sex in order to have children and that's not fallowing your instincts because you decided with your intelligence that you want to have children, but yes if you have sex just because of sex then that's only fallowing your instincts and no you can't choose with a free will to just have sex because that would be like using free will to choose that you don't want to have a free will. Having a free will doesn't mean that you will always have a choice it means that when there is a choice that you can freely choose one of available options. To put it like this, let's say I dislike this world and I want it destroyed or changed but I can't eater change it or destroy it as I am an average person with an average recurses so an options to destroy it or to change it are not available to me and I can only put up with it and that I don't have a choice in  meter that doesn't mean I don't have a free will.

[Dark Ariel7]

I love these discussions so much. They make me feel like a philosopher. Which I guess technically I am but... anyways.

One thing I can't stand is people thinking that they are different from animals in any way, especially thinking that they are better. Why do you have to be better than a dog to be human? I knew dogs worth more than people that I know and people that I have heard about. We are a kid of animal. Hell, we are not even the only ones that posses intelligence. Anything that can react to its environment has the origins of intelligence. Anything with a brain has modern intelligence. Dogs hunt in packs, prey hides and otters use rocks to break hard clams. If a dog is a dog because it is stupid than any person smarter than you is a human while you are an animal. It is illogical. Humans are simply a type of animal no different than any other. I only went there because I read this was the original inspiration for the thread. I like that discussion.

 

Free will is there because you can make choices. It is arguable that the choices were predetermined. But since you don't know the ending of the book is it not the same thing as if the ending hasn't been written yet? The illusion is the same thing as the reality. Think about the logic in the Monogatari series. If it looks real, smells real, taste real, sounds real, and feels real, what's the difference between the fake and the real?

 

Lastly, you cannot live ignoring your instincts. It is by definition not possible. Living is in it of itself a self feeding instinct. If not, then why do you want to stay alive?

[Life]

You are terribly wrong and science has already proven that.

 

If you don't believe in a god choosing your fate since birth then noting is predetermined, even if two people live exactly the same life from the day of birth they won't come to the same decision once they have a choice, our brain being subjected to the same stimuli doesn't make as a same person, there ware an experiments like that before and they proven that situations surrounding our lives are only part of who we are.

What experiments have there been to prove such. Even the slightest difference can change something but as long as everything starts the same way, the same stimuli would be subjected to would be the same. Your thought processes would be the same and the same outcome would be achieved so I do not believe that my claim was entirely incorrect as you had stated. I would be enlightened to see this experiment.

 

IYou posit that our actions are determined since the birth of the universe. Therefore we will always come to decision A when the times come, even though choices B and C appear before us. If it's decided ahead of time for us, wouldn't our free will be therefore just our illusion?

That was what I meant because everything would be exactly the same and if so, then the thought processes would be the same and result in the same decision being made but I still think that there is free will. There isn't anything restricting the way you think. It's ust that in the end, the way you think will lead to you making that decision anyway.

 

If everything were predetermined that wouldn't be free will since any choice you "make" was made for you 13 billion years ago. Thankfully quantum mechanics seem to cast quite a bit of doubt on the possibility of everything being predetermined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_realm

This may the case but then you have Schrodinger's cat showing how ridiculous quantum mechanics appears to be when applied in common usage. However I do understand this and I have overlooked that point. The second law of thermodynamics and entropy. I keep forgetting them when discussing such topics. However at the point in time a decision is made, I still believe that you would only make the same decision if everything leading up to that point had been the same. In the end most of these are theories and both seem plausible until one is disproven completely. However you can still argue that free will exists because there isn't anything restricting you from making a decision. This thought does interest me though. Correct me if I am wrong but it would mean that if we knew where every particle in the universe is right now, we can potentially figure out everything in the past but most likely not the future.

[Okami]

What experiments have there been to prove such. Even the slightest difference can change something but as long as everything starts the same way, the same stimuli would be subjected to would be the same. Your thought processes would be the same and the same outcome would be achieved so I do not believe that my claim was entirely incorrect as you had stated. I would be enlightened to see this experiment.

 

There have been experiments in witch a several children ware separately raised in a closed environment being subjected to exact a same situations, being traded in an exact same way, being told the exact the same things and they still answered on given questions very differently it lasted for 12 years before being shut down and claimed to be failure as purpose of experiment was for all of children to be the same. If I remember a name of a documentary movie about it I will let you know.

 

But this is also not the only reason that your theory is incorrect, if there was a separate universe that started exactly the same chases of it turning up the same are absolute minimum as too much things in this world are the ware they are by a pure luck. Even if there is an alternative you in a alternative universe from the moment of it's existence he would start becoming different from you in this universe. Even if in one point in time you are in an exact a same positions and being subjected to an exact same stimuli let's say that you in both universes go and start gambling there is no reason why your luck would be the same in both universes therefore while in one universe you might lose some money in other you might get rich where from the you in one universe would start driving away from you in another universe and once difference occurs it will only go further with time. But this is just a small meter but what about the way you are born, genetics are not 100%, 2 child from same parents won't be the same, one might have black hair other might have brown, one might be intelligent other might not be therefore even the way you are born is coincidence and the chance of you being born in other universe being the exact same is highly unlikely, and while you yourself might not have such great influence on a global scale what about great scientists, leaders of world (Kings, emperors) imagine what would happen if they ware different, like if some great scientist like for example Einstein or Tesla weren't born as intelligent as they ware in this universe how much would that alone change a world.

 

But that's not all either, your life is not predetermined because if we don't bring a supernatural will that predetermined everything for you in a conversation then who is there to predetermine who will you meet in your life, how good luck will you have in gambling if you are gambling, how intelligent will you be born etc.

 

Unless you believe that there is a god that decides your fate I don't think you can claim that your life is predetermined as even without a free will if you ware to live your life twice from the beginning you will live it differently. And if we say that we have a free will then it's even less of a chance that anything is predetermined as if you just think twice about something you might not come to the same conclusion as a first time.

 

And this is all ignoring the scientific facts that say that stimuli we ware subjected darning our lives don't make a 100% of who we are that I mention in my last post and in the beginning of this post. With even that out there chances are pretty high that even if there ware trillion of parallel universes that started the same way would all turn out differently from each other in some point in time.

[Life]

Lets begin. First, the experiment was conducted against several individuals. That is not relevant to how one particular individual thinks with the exact stimuli. Not similar stimuli but the exact same ones. Also with the exact same individual. Stimulus is also every thought and every external factor that has been processed. What I was trying to say was that if the universe started the same everything would end up being the same. Let us only involve ourselves in classical mechanics for now because I do not think you understand my original point. If you roll a dice, if you knew how it was travelling. Every particle exerting a force upon the dice. The wind, air pressure, temperature. You can figure out how it would land. That isn't based on luck. You can figure out how it will end up. That is the same as the start of the universe. If everything starts off the same way. you can potentially find every force being exerted on every particle. The energy and behavior matter can potentially be measured. If all of this can be measured there should not be a point of deviation in any point in time. You can't change classical mechanics. You said that people can be born differently. there are many factors to contribute. The quality of every sperm/ovum. The medium they are travelling through. If you calculated every aspect affecting conception you can find out the outcome even during the contraception process. If you repeated the process with everything exactly the same there won't be deviation. People who are influential would therefore never be any different. Same genetics, exposed to the same environment because there ca't be a deviation in the environment. Every piece of matter and force obeys physics and the physics would be the same every time. From this, even if there isn't a god, it is possible to conclude that everything was predetermined since the first bang. This is just classical mechanics though.

[Okami]

Lets begin. First, the experiment was conducted against several individuals. That is not relevant to how one particular individual thinks with the exact stimuli. Not similar stimuli but the exact same ones. What I was trying to say was that if the universe started the same everything would end up being the same. Let us only involve ourselves in classical mechanics for now because I do not think you understand my original point. If you roll a dice, if you knew how it was travelling. Every particle exerting a force upon the dice. The wind, air pressure, temperature. You can figure out how it would land. That isn't based on luck. You can figure out how it will end up. That is the same as the start of the universe. If everything starts off the same way. you can potentially find every force being exerted on every particle. The energy and behavior matter can potentially be measured. If all of this can be measured there should not be a point of deviation in any point in time. You can't change classical mechanics. You said that people can be born differently. there are many factors to contribute. The quality of every sperm/ovum. The medium they are travelling through. If you calculated every aspect affecting conception you can find out the outcome even during the contraception process. If you repeated the process with everything exactly the same there won't be deviation. People who are influential would therefore never be any different. Same genetics, exposed to the same environment because physics had lead up to that point. From this, even if there isn't a god, it is possible to conclude that everything was predetermined since the first bang. This is without classical mechanics though.

 

First you said that everything would be the same because people would have been subjected to the same stimuli true life but now you are saying that even things that humans minds have no influence on would be the same and there is really noting that that could be based on unless god/fate, while you can predict trowing a dice with physics there is noting that says that you will trow it with the same strength being subjected to the same stimuli doesn't mean a thing here because you don't start calculating when you gable and trow a dice you trow in on a whim hoping for a good luck therefore even in an exact same situations it's less likely that you will get a same number then a different one, and there is absolutely noting that says that whether/wind has to be the same, even if whether started the same, created with the same laws there is noting to say that it will follow the exact same pattern for billions of years. With genetics and you being born exactly the same it's even less likely as there is even more different possibilities and none of external factors have a role in it. What about when you on a whim go to the shop now or in 5 minutes it's the same as with dice there is nothing that says that you can't do the opposite from the first time nor anything that determiners it.

 

What you are talking here sounds more and more like a god/fate theory and less and less as a science.

[Life]

You will always throw it with the same force if subjected to the same stimuli. Your actions are controlled by the brain and the brain is just electrical signals. If you can identify and evaluate how these signals are being transmitted etc and what stimulated such signals, you can potentially determine how the arm will move and thus it won't be random. Say the universe began as the white ball from pool. You can smash that ball into the the rest of them and they will scatter. They will always follow the same pattern if they came in contact the same way. You can't change that. It is also possible to calculate the trajectory of the balls if you knew the momentum and angle everything was hit as well as the friction of the pool table. the patterns will always be the same. how does external factors have nothing to do with contraception? If the sperm is swimming through a thicker medium, it would be slower and have a harder time getting into the ovum. If you had a whim to go to the shops, you just went on a whim right? If you decided otherwise, what factor is there that made you decide otherwise? if nothing else was different, you would make the same decision because nothing made you think otherwise. So please tell me how you would think otherwise. 

[arakura]

What Life says is a bad answer. Mostly because it makes me feel bad    . For my part I will believe that there is a much deeper, larger set of 'data' (such a cruel word) leading to each and every one of my millions of actions every day. Things like my emotions state, my memories, these things are so varied and minute and build upon each other second in and second out that it's not only tragic and sad to take the "stimuli, effect" point of view, it's downright useless. Living things are more complex than we can ever understand. Memories and emotions are too varied and detailed, with histories in each body, to take into account as 'data'. The way you answer the question is as if there was an infinity out there by which anything we are saying or feeling could be combined with the molecular build of our bodies and the specific memories that create our mentality that lead us to certain actions. But that's all really confusing and silly.

 

Free will is doing what you want to, and it comes naturally to every one of us. It's just that people tend to react similarly to similar situations. Similarity is all there is.

 

(we could get into an argument over what a choice is and what's just 'autopilot' but I really dont want to get too technical, because that's the whole problem with this question. Similarity is key, and if you feel held down and locked in place by that, go jump out of a plane with a parachute and hopefully while you're falling you can forget that you might not have had a choice anyway, because it's a cruel and heartless suggestion.)

[Dark Ariel7]

Whats so cruel about not  having a choice? If someone dies because of you then you know that there was NOTHING you could have done to make it better. It's a weight off your shoulders.

Also. I agree with life. Technically if you could repeat every even perfectly then the outcome would be the same every time because so far as we know the laws of the universe are not variable. Also, if there is a future then that means that the actions you take now are, in the future, the past. You cannot change the past so you cannot change the future or the present. It's not sad. I could be wrong but logic suggests that this is how it is. This might just be because humans cannot understand the concept of randomness or emptiness though.

[arakura]

^ it just takes the thrill out of things... probably. I dont spend my nights contemplating this issue very much, and it just feels natural to say that it's cruel... because that's the way I feel about it instinctively. And I've been considering the concept of randomness. What is truly random in the physical world? Is probability something we just came up with to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the laws of physics or is there some deeper mechanism which actually functions based on randomness or probability? The answer to this question will likely also answer Life's question about a predetermined universe.

 

I talk a lot for how little I say I like to think about this, so please forgive me T.T

[Flutterz]

No I haven't you just didn't understand the first post, If you fallow your instincts because of satisfying them it doesn't meter how you do it, if you do it only with fallowing instincts directly or with help of intelligence the result is the same and that is that you are just following your instincts. You can choose with your intelligence to have sex in order to have children and that's not fallowing your instincts because you decided with your intelligence that you want to have children, but yes if you have sex just because of sex then that's only fallowing your instincts and no you can't choose with a free will to just have sex because that would be like using free will to choose that you don't want to have a free will. Having a free will doesn't mean that you will always have a choice it means that when there is a choice that you can freely choose one of available options. To put it like this, let's say I dislike this world and I want it destroyed or changed but I can't eater change it or destroy it as I am an average person with an average recurses so an options to destroy it or to change it are not available to me and I can only put up with it and that I don't have a choice in  meter that doesn't mean I don't have a free will.

That's exactly the contradiction I'm talking about - your definitions lead to having a choice which results in you not having made the choice.

 

That's different from your destroy the world/change the world/do nothing choice. You can still choose to destroy the world, you'd simply have a lot to do, and you'd probably still fail no matter how you tried, but you've decided to destroy the world and that was a conscious choice. Same with changing the world, only that's much easier as there's a ton of different ways to change the world, either changing it a little or a lot. Or you can choose to do nothing because you don't care for trying to do something you'll probably never succeed at (destroying the world) and it doesn't matter to you if you change the world, you just want to live your life.

[Yeah Way]

I'll be honest here: I haven't read all the posts here, due to the amount of terrible rhetoric *cough* Okami *cough*, so I'm not sure if someone's already brought this up. Apologies if they have. 

 

About determinism, does the whole probability-factor of quantum mechanics not completely debunk it? I honestly just always assumed it did.

[Okami]

That's exactly the contradiction I'm talking about - your definitions lead to having a choice which results in you not having made the choice.

 

That's different from your destroy the world/change the world/do nothing choice. You can still choose to destroy the world, you'd simply have a lot to do, and you'd probably still fail no matter how you tried, but you've decided to destroy the world and that was a conscious choice. Same with changing the world, only that's much easier as there's a ton of different ways to change the world, either changing it a little or a lot. Or you can choose to do nothing because you don't care for trying to do something you'll probably never succeed at (destroying the world) and it doesn't matter to you if you change the world, you just want to live your life.

 

But if you don't make a choice you didn't make a choice you let things play on it's own therefore it's not a free will.

 

 

You will always throw it with the same force if subjected to the same stimuli. Your actions are controlled by the brain and the brain is just electrical signals. If you can identify and evaluate how these signals are being transmitted etc and what stimulated such signals, you can potentially determine how the arm will move and thus it won't be random. Say the universe began as the white ball from pool. You can smash that ball into the the rest of them and they will scatter. They will always follow the same pattern if they came in contact the same way. You can't change that. It is also possible to calculate the trajectory of the balls if you knew the momentum and angle everything was hit as well as the friction of the pool table. the patterns will always be the same. how does external factors have nothing to do with contraception? If the sperm is swimming through a thicker medium, it would be slower and have a harder time getting into the ovum. If you had a whim to go to the shops, you just went on a whim right? If you decided otherwise, what factor is there that made you decide otherwise? if nothing else was different, you would make the same decision because nothing made you think otherwise. So please tell me how you would think otherwise. 

 

What you are saying here is that we are all computers that will if have the exact same date always do every single little thing the same, the problem with that is that we have awareness and if we think about a same thing while having the exact same information doesn't mean we will come to the same conclusion. Also unless you believe that there was something that can calculate and decide exact way how evolutions, universe is being created  how it will result then it is just random and not determined, if something is random then nobody can predict how will it turn out nor is there a reason why should it turn exactly the same as it is now if it ware to happen twice.

 

 

I'll be honest here: I haven't read all the posts here, due to the amount of terrible rhetoric *cough* Okami *cough*, so I'm not sure if someone's already brought this up. Apologies if they have. 

 

About determinism, does the whole probability-factor of quantum mechanics not completely debunk it? I honestly just always assumed it did.

 

Someone sounding smart doesn't mean that he said something smart also someone not being rhetoric doesn't mean he didn't say something smart, if you decide if someone is right or wrong simply by the way he said it you will almost always be wrong.

[Dark Ariel7]

I like the logic of NGNL when it come to random. It's not random you just dont know the outcome. It has been predetermined by outside factor before you even knew that the question existed. Let me paraphrase Sora here.

What are the odds of pulling the Ace of spades in a deck? 1 in 52 right?

Well in brand new decks the order of the cards is for the most part already determined. If you take out the jokers and draw the bottom card. It will be the Ace of Spades.

It went from 1 in 52 to a 100% chance. It was not random either way. You just happened not to know the outcome before the draw.

If you dont like the way I butchered the quote you are more than welcomed to link to the episode were he explains this.

[Yukiru]

I don't think free will exists, we are either slaves of our own beliefs, of our nature or of someone else.

[Flutterz]

But if you don't make a choice you didn't make a choice you let things play on it's own therefore it's not a free will.

Well that's certainly the easiest and cheapest way to sidestep the contradiction, instead of thinking where you might be wrong just label any choice that results in a contradiction as an impossible choice.

That's kind of similar to what happened with the Church and Galileo. When he pointed out that the observations contradicted the Church's opinion that the Earth was the center of the universe, rather than think they might be wrong they declared that it's impossible for it to be any other way. Just something to think about.

if you decide if someone is right or wrong simply by the way he said it you will almost always be wrong.

Not really, while judging how correct a person's opinion is based on how well they phrase it is a pretty bad idea, someone who speaks coherently is more likely to be right than someone who can barely string two words together. Also speaking incoherently increases the chances that even if your opinion is correct, people will misunderstand it.

[Yeah Way]

Someone sounding smart doesn't mean that he said something smart also someone not being rhetoric doesn't mean he didn't say something smart, if you decide if someone is right or wrong simply by the way he said it you will almost always be wrong.

Um, okay? All I was saying was that your argument was terrible. You're tripping over yourself a lot and don't seem to know much about what you're talking about at all. If you can't see that, perhaps it's best I just leave you be.