There is an argument that free will doesn’t exist because there is an unbroken chain of causality we are riding on that dates back to the beginning of time. Meaning that every time you fart, scratch your nose, blink, or make lifechanging decisions there is a pre existing reason. These reasons might be anything from the sensory enviornment you were in the past minute, the hormone levels in your bloodstream at the time, hormones you were exposed to as a baby, or how you were parented growing up. No thought you have is really original and is more like a domino affect of neurons firing off in reaction to what you have experienced. What are your thoughts on this?
If free will was truly non-existent, it would mean that a theoretical entity with access to perfect information would be able to perfectly predict your actions. I don’t believe that is possible; I think that human beings are too irrational. Consider a very simple decision: what am I going to have for dinner? You could know the restaurants I have access to, what food is in my home, what I have discussed in a given day, and even what my current mood is, but it can ultimately come down to a whim. I could choose something I’ve never had before, for no reason, and seek it out.
I believe that we are individual actors in a very complex system that introduces lots of constraints to our decision-making process. We may not even be consciously aware of some of the constraints; however, we are always the ones ultimately making the decisions. You always have the option of a whim.
How would perceived irrationality be counter to a deterministic universe? It just maybe seems irrational without all of the information, but is still perfectly part of the causal chain.
See, now we’re getting into parts that we can’t prove. My argument is that it is irrational. Your argument is that it merely seems that way. There is no reconciling our positions.
So you’re saying it is possible then? That was my only hangup. I don’t have a position on whether we have free will (leaning towards not) for the exact reason we can’t prove it.
But your whim wouldn’t really be random. It may seem random to you but there would be a reason behind it. How did you find out about the random place? You would’ve had to of come to the decision that you wanted something different somehow
This implies that every action must have a reason behind it, which I frankly find a laughable concept. Human beings are irrational creatures; our actions don’t require a reason. We have the ability to choose chaos. Unless your argument is that the cells in my stomach have the ability to know what kind of food they want and can unconsciously pass that information to my brain, there’s no reason for me to decide at 8:00 PM tonight “Hey, I want to eat Pakistani food.”
In fact, I could choose an invalid choice! Say I chose Pakistani. I would logically need to find a Pakistani restaurant to order from. What if they all closed at 8? What if I didn’t have a Pakistani restaurant near me? I may make a decision that ultimately, I cannot act upon, and then I would have to introduce some constraints to my decision making process. The decisions that follow would have a reason, but the initial whim doesn’t require one.
How did you hear about pakistani food? Where did you hear about Pakistan recently enough to recall it? Was it food related or not? If you look deep enough, yes sometimes unconsciously, we make these decisions that seem random but they are not. In a real scenario, not one just made up for the sake of debate, theres gonna be underlying reasons for your “random” choice. You could even try your darndest to be random and choose the first thing that comes to mind but you are still digging for things that it ties to “that would be unlikely therefore random” when in reality its just a word or concept you’ve unconsciously defined as unusual or different. I don’t think there is a human element or ability to choose chaos like you think there is. It just appears that way because thats the only way we are capable of perceiving it
Then we must agree to disagree, because there really isn’t any further to debate. My argument is that human beings are irrational and capable of making irrational decisions. Your argument is that irrationality is merely a pretense, and that there must be a confluence of factors that caused these things to happen. I think trying to constantly find a reason when one doesn’t need to exist is a path to madness, and that is why I believe in free will.
I can respect that. Good closure to a discussion!
What about randomness? Most people would say to be random is not to have free will.
This depends, because there are two different kinds of randomness. A lot of the “randomness” that people encounter is actually based upon something, and our theoretical entity with access to perfect information could predict the outcome of that randomness perfectly. I’m thinking of stuff like computer randomness, number generation, games of chance, that sort of thing.
However, true random absolutely exists; in the words of Terry Pratchett “Things just happen, what the hell.” You see it with mutations in nature; ordinarily healthy cells can spontaneously change without directed input. It is unpredictable, even for our theoretical entity.
Or like quantum systems, in the interpretations that prevent alternate universes. The first kind is called “pseudorandomness” in mathematics.
Usually, when people say free will they don’t just mean that their decisions are random, though.