Just doing a paper on this at the moment thought I would throw the question out there and see what every one else thinks.

Basic argument is: If everything has a cause such that effects are repeatable by recreating the causes perfectly. Are we really free to make any decisions at all or is it all just an illusion?

Basically the two are incompatible one has to be an illusion or rather a rough approximation of what we perceive. So I am curios as to what people believe more strongly. That free will is real and Scientific causation is just an approximation of how things work OR is Scientific causality the way all things are and free will is just an illusion.

Ramifications for the winning poll result will be the next topic

Edit: I realise that several philosophers have arguments for the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Libertarian Free-Will compatibility but I am making the stronger case here of complete reason not of sufficient reason.

Also both might be false but that idea is neither enjoyable nor interesting.

How spooky is it that you should ask this question now? Just had this very conversation with son who is writing his ethics exam today.

My conclusion was that free will is an illusion. That it can only exist in treatises (sp?) on free will. That we are so at the mercy of the laws of cause and effect, minute by minute, that we mere mortals are pretty well prey to them. Unless we have attained Bodhisatva-hood, of course. Like that is going to happen real soon!
Oh...and my son's conclusion? That the old man was raving as usual. He's young. He still has most of his illusions intact. Me...I'm just a candle in the wind.

nice reply!

Me and my other philosopher mates are divided about the whole thing. personally I'm leaning towards free will on several reasons (infinite vicious regress, accountability, and free will being something we seem to experience as opposed to something we seem to observe) but allot of mates of mine, all really good philosophers have nice arguments for causality as well

I hope i get some more replies on this soon

thanks for responding

Dont get me wrong, Wookiee. I like to fool myself that the decisions I make are mine and that , being considered ones, occasionally, are independent of 'stuff'. But I also know that there are things that I am unaware of, things that have yet to come into play even as I am making a decision, and that are lurking, waiting to deal me a blow, in the back ground. To repeat... there is so much 'stuff' that we just can not keep on top of it enough to be able to make true 'free will' decisions.

I believe in free-will. Now this may be strange or stupid sounding....but reality is relative. It is all about perception and your relationship to this. You look at someone's life and think it horrid....they are perfectly content. So there is your perspective.

The life one leads and their "reality" is all in how they seem to view it and thus if you believe you can choose and have free will to do..whatever..then you do. It is realy that simple and that complex.

The "rules" of society, science...what have you-only restrict you as much as your perception allows. It is almost like the Looney Toon cartoons where they walk off a cliff and don't fall...commenting that they never learned the law of gravity.

So perceive that you have this ability of free will and you do. It is not illusion because it exist FOR YOU. To the outside perspective it appears an illusion because they may see through their own reality the constrictions of choice.

I hope this makes some sense...I did just wake up and have not yet had my Coke.

yes no I agree, There is an incalculable amount of influences on the most minor of decisions, in fact I just finished reading W,D, ROSS "the right and the good" you may like it if you have not already read it, its more moral theory but it works along those lines. but also I am a duelist and if something can influence my actions that has itself no cause in this world then I am free but through these actions I am a causeless cause to other things AND can be held accountable for my actions.

Now I have no more proof than any other duelist.

But in a fatalistic world the likes of which perfect causality would produce. it seems interesting that we come to contemplate this very idea on sheer "chance" as a causal chain dating back to the big bang and possibly beyond (incidentally the thing that "caused" the big bang is another interesting idea because if Everything has a cause then the universe seems to extend back in time infinitely[another interesting note the big bang is but one theory]) Now I understand the million monkeys million typewriters analogy But even according to quantum physics the chances of me being able to walk through a wall are actually greater than doing exactly what I'm doing now. That of contemplating if I am in control of my contemplations

Now I admit causality seems to work for most things but to assume it holds for all things is just as inductive as assuming it does not. there is no deductive proof one way or the other.

I may in fact just be doing all this because I have to... I was caused to... but hell, then its out of my hands what I believe.

How does such a theory of causality deal with random or irrational events or is such an event impossible?

I voted Free-Will, but I didn't really have any choice in the matter...

Seriously though, I don't believe that there can ever be a final answer to this question. We are limited to the perspective of our consciousness, and the question is basically asking for a description of the nature of said consciousness. We are thinking about the nature of thought. The idea of free-will implies that there is something, independant of causal influence, that makes decisions. What is the objective nature of this decision maker?

Humans experience "reality" subjectively, relative to our individual perspectives. Even empirical evidence is subject to the perspective of the observer. While we use tools in an attempt to minimize the impact of perspective when studying things scientifically, the fact is that observing the results produced by these tools is still experienced subjectively. The scope of things that are absolutely knowable is therefore very limited... basically to things of pure logic. We define what "1", "+", "=" and "2" are, and based on those definitions one can objectively conclude that "1+1=2". These details and the conclusion can exist outside of our perceived reality... unfiltered through subjective human senses. When thinking about the nature of thought, you are using a subjective tool to "measure" itself.

It follows that the question of the existance of free-will will forever by unknowable to humans. All discussions on the topic are simply a matter of subjective belief, not absolute objective knowledge. Some arguments to belief may be stronger than others, but a final answer is not possible.

As to why I answered free-will in the poll? Either I choose to believe in free-will (for various reasons) or the laws of physics, working on the molecules in my brain, created the illusion of choice. I have no way of knowing which.

Good question and the answer in a complete causal world is... no randomness is just very complicated

Well I say 'Embrace the randomness... might just be your last chance to 'go steady' !'.

If there is no free will, then whether you "think" there is free will or not makes no difference: all events are predetermined, and so this debate---like everything else in the universe---is completely pointless. If there is free will, then believing that there is free will is trivially the only correct answer.

Philosophers: overanalyzing ridiculously simple questions since man invented leisure time.

Man, you "proved" ridiculously simple questions with ridiculous simple answer

I really wish things were so simple. But answering this was a free will act or predetermined event?

Maybe there is things we can decide by free will, others we don't have much to say about.
Maybe we can even say and do about anything and we indeed are doing this and proving we are better in doing the wrong ones.

Does it make any difference? You might as well be asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Since Wookie was predetermined to create the thread and each one of us to answer as we have, may I request that the mention of angels does not predetermine anyone to direct this topic down a forbidden avenue, with the predetermined knowledge that it will be closed!

For those looking for some thought provoking information on the subject of what a "causal world" might be, I find "Laplace's demon" to be an interesting concept / mental exercise.

LOL nice to see you as well MB long time no see

And you Malchik

And in reply MB as debates go I feel this to be an important one.

Because if free will does exist I'm going to be nice to everyone for I can be held accountable for my actions, yet if it does not then I can do what I like and the consequences as well are pre-determined but I will know that it couldn't of been any other way and I am just a cosmic joke and as such perfectly innocent regardless of what I do

Morality is tied up with free will.
Morality is just a causal illusion if everything is caused by something else, I can still be held accountable for my actions but only if it is pre-determined that I am to be.
Causality leads to an infinite vicious regress, there can be no beginning of time if everything is caused by something else, it disappears backwards with out end... but there can be an end in the future.
Is it possible for something like reality to have an end with no beginning?
If it is then destruction is the ultimate meaning of everything... to get to that "end"

But these are ideas I want to explore when i get a good demographic of what people believe reality to be like

Hi Wookiee,

Have you been taking spelling lessons?

Surely Douglas Adams has pointed out and proved beyond all reasonable doubt that we are no more than computer generated holograms in a big rpg created by the mice. We are not real but believe we are real because that is how we have been programmed.

The question of free will versus causality is also perhaps unanswerable because even if free will does not exist the trillions and trillions of possible connections between each particle in the multiverse make the suggestion one can establish causality almost a nonsense.

I can for instance produce a perfectly cogent analysis that proves beyond doubt that the only true cause of death is being born (or coming into existence if you prefer).

Other questions are equally unanswerable - what lies beyond the edge of space? what happens when time ends? etc.

Since proof seems to me improbable or at least a very long time ahead (if time hasn't stopped by then) the more interesting question is 'how should society behave differently if it learns free will does not exist?' But if and when that happened we would by definition be able to determine just how it would behave. Thus looking at the question now is nothing more than idle speculation.

Looked at another way, you can behave any way you like even now, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. By and large you know what those consequences will be before you act. Whether or not you act freely or under compulsion of causality, the reaction ain't gonna be no different. You can say 'it was my genetic make up' until the cows come home but it won't get you any Brownie points. Unfair if true? Since when was causality 'fair'?

fair point or points i should say and i wont try and defend against them because your absolutely right.

However all the best questions are unanswered if they had concrete answers then there would no longer be a need for the question, by that logic the more impossible the question the better it will be (my logic is slightly different to actual logic)

and as for the spelling.
doing my thesis at the moment so I'm getting some practice as opposed to just IRC english

It seems to me that we have strayed, somewhat, onto the meaning of 'reality'...though whether a definition of 'reality' and a definition of 'free will', and whether or not it exists, can ever be divorced from each other...?

What you end up with is three blind guys in a lightless cave...with an elephant. All wish to determine 'what' an elelphant is, and to explain it to their fellows. But what motivates them to want to determine 'elephantness' in the first place?

...and who the hell is going to clean up all that mess...

...and why?

How do you define causality?

When you mention 'recreating causes perfectly' - how far does that go back? The molecular level? The atomic? The subatomic?

I would argue that due to the uncertainties at the subatomic level it would be impossible to recreate a state or cause perfectly. Maybe causality is an illusion caused by observation on too large a scale?

IMO, true cause-effect relationships can exist independant of observation or reproduction. Either free-will exists or it doesn't. Either reality is 100% causal or it isn't. Whether or not these things are "known" does not change reality.

[aside]
All deaths may have been proceeded by some for of birth / creation, but all births have not resulted in death. All living entities have not died (yet?) and to assume that death is unavoidable would be to assume that the future will be like the past (which is something that can never be proven absolutely by humans).
[/aside]

Firstly I would like to say THETA! long time no see

Secondly sure quantum physics provides plenty of gaps for randomness within its confines and this bleeds out ever so slightly into relative physics but some quantum physicists beleave that these "seemingly random and/or strange behavior" can be explained by something they are just laking this "something"

and by causality i mean hypothetically a perfect causality on the smallest (if there is such a thing) elements of everything

I find this statement to be the pinnacle of immorality. No sane person would actually change their behaviour depending on whether or not they think it's predetermined. A destructive act committed by a particular individual, whether determined or not-determined, was nevertheless committed by a particular individual. That particular configuration of brain cells needs to be judged, and, if the rest of us determine that this individual is likely to commit more such acts, he needs to be stopped. Personal responsibility is a utilitarian concept, which has nothing to do with determinism, because the world works exactly the same as it always did, no matter what you might think about it.

fascinating...

so let me get this straight, no free will, only strict determinism.

But the impetus to make good choices is to demonstrate the pedigree of ones brain cells.

So you basically have functional free will and philosophical determinism. That is precisely what I have believed, I just have never been able to make the two logically stand together.

Not just the pedigree, but the processing of all new information. Our minds are physically changed every time we come across new information, depending on how we process it. How it compares to the existing structure does make a difference, of course. But surely most of us know the strange mental feeling of completely changing our opinions on something based on something new we learn. It's a cascading effect that's like the closing of dozens of doors and the opening of dozens of others.

At any rate, I think you were asking me if that was my outlook, and if so, yes. I make decisions all the time, and it seems that I'm perfectly free to choose anything at all, but as far as I can tell, there is only one decision I can make in any particular situation, and that is the one that I made at the time.

To put it into context, look at your own past. You made many decisions. Can you change any of them now? No, because you already made them, it's the past, you can't change the past. Is it a restriction of personal freedom that you cannot change those decisions? Does it demean your humanity or your individuality that you can't change your own past? Would it make any difference if you couldn't change the future, either? Not as long as you don't know what happens in the future. Classical literature has considered these topics many times in the context of prophecies, with people trying to change what they know of the future, always failing. Oedipus Rex comes to mind, or what happened to Achilles.

It's a complicated issue, but what it comes down to is as you said -- the world works with the appearance of free will, so it doesn't really mean anything whether or not it actually exists.

YES

Every moment is sacred...
Light is the core of all that I am.
Yet I do not act according to the truth.
If causality held sway I would either be dead or I would be true.
I am neither and thus an acception and abomination. Yet I am that that is.
I exist and I am pissed. We are all exceptional and unique.
We are the result of the past moving into the future and yet we decide that that will be.
Every moment is sacred. Every choice moves the universe.
We are that that is. We are the Light.

Could you maybe go into a little detail on why you've come to those conclusions, Gravitas? I feel like I wasted a lot of time explaining the reasoning behind my outlook.

Ouch

I am sorry If I dissed your eloquence.
I am not saying I am right and you are not.
I confess I did not read what you wrote.
I am having to be brief in this place today because I am only a trustee and not free.
How do I do you Justice?
I can choose to lie and I will not die...
I can choose to frame and kill another in my stead.
I can tell the truth and be put to death.
What should I do? What did I do>>>
What will I do...
I am that that is and yet I ask You what is the truth>>
The key is I am... I choose
"see"?

Perhaps I see, perhaps I don't. It sounds like you're saying, in a roundabout way, that you are guilty of a capital crime, and you're evading execution by not confessing to it. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted)

"I am that I am" is the quote of Yahweh and of many teenagers' profiles in their "about me" section when they don't have anything of substance to write, because we can all say that, and it's a tautologous statement that's true for anyone, even though it's a truth that relays no information at all. I don't think anyone contests the "I am" part, but the "I choose" part is in fact the heart of this debate, and simply stating it does not support its verity.

OK well now that was unfortunate.
No I am not confessing to a crime. I meant to propose a circumstance from the point of view of a desperate person. A situation in which one must chose ones own mortality according to the truth and either with or against reality.

In such a situation is it possibly to free ones self without free will? How could slavery have existed and then be abolished? How could most people smoke and then be smoke free? How could bad humanity be reformed if there was no free will?

Perhaps what we perceive as destiny is an echo of natural precognition that we have developed as a species to overcome the limitations of our slow perceptions. Every thing we experience is a fraction of a second behind now and we must always be pre-cognizant just to survive...
Just a thought.

Well, I apologise for misunderstanding.

Now I've had a few moments to absorb your latest post, and at the heart of it seems to be the question of "how can we change our minds or our behaviour without free will?" (I spoke briefly on this some posts ago, about changing my mind, but I didn't specifically address this aspect of it.)

I would contend that we do not actually change our own minds. I cannot, for instance, willfully choose to believe something contrary to what I actually believe. For instance, I cannot choose to believe that I have the power of telekinesis. I can pretend it's true, certainly, but that's not the same thing as actually believing something. Let's take something more mundane. Let's say someone has told me that I've won a huge sum of money, and I do not believe him, even though I would certainly like to believe it. I can't simply choose to believe it. I have to be convinced by external evidence. A briefcase filled with cash would convince me, for certain. At that point, I would believe it, and I could not choose to disbelieve it.

My mind has been changed, but not though my own will. In fact, I was powerless to prevent it. I could try (lying to myself/fooling myself), but I would always know what I really believe. Only through external input, or new internal processing of existing input, can my mind be changed. Will has nothing to do with it.

I must admit now that I have read my post again, your perception was valid. I should have been more specific.

Now I've had a few moments to absorb your latest post, and at the heart of it seems to be the question of "how can we change our minds or our behavior without free will?" (I spoke briefly on this some posts ago, about changing my mind, but I didn't specifically address this aspect of it.)

Well I hope that people do have free will. I have had things happen in my life that seem so familiar and at time it is as if I am just reliving an event that is out of my control. Yet in some of these situations it has seemed that, because I did or did not do one or a few things that I "remembered" as critical to the event, I was able to change the outcome from what I "remembered"

That was not well written but I am not good at temporal matters. If this is not clear and yet seems pertinent or of some value I will try to clarify it after I have some coffee.

People have free will, indeed, and use it to do the most short sighted thing they can. Enough this seems to return some quick profit, the later... well, later. Sadly this vision can turns later into too late.

Kind of late here, but I didn’t see the Chaos Theory mentioned.

It kind of blends both concepts when claiming there is randomness (free-will?) in the small scale and causality on the big picture.

Something like: Each one of us decide when it is time to go to lunch. No Matter what, the streets will be full during lunch hours.

Isaac Asimov used something like that as the base for his “Foundation” series.

Well, I hardly think the word "will" can apply to quantum particles, but it's true that we are unable to determine exactly what they will do at any given moment. But we can predict the probability of them doing a particular thing with a good degree of accuracy.

I think that is key word: PROBABILITY !

I am not a scholar and don’t have the knowledge or the talent to elaborate on the matter, but I think the equation (??!) should be something like:

Free Will >>> Probability >>> Causality

Or, in other world, Causality might be probabilistic. With a different bell shape for physical and for social phenomena (and whatever in between)

You know, I just look at this and wonder:
Does it even matter?

Probably .......... (fill with the word of your choice Yes/No/Maybe)

Since the discussion turned out philosophical as opposed it's initial theosophical tone...

Seeking to restrain at the topic question: Yes, there is nothing that turns free will and causality incompatible. Although the limits aren't so easily established, there aren't definite boundaries. Free will lead to causes, and causes will generate decisions to be take. Sometimes one can decide something about the issues, sometimes he can even believe he decided, more often he can just follow the flow.

Above is an individual vision over individuals, more complex bodies, like the society and/or institutions in general follows similar rules. Now, about the environment and even the universal rules, they will attain to well defined laws, and albeit the random factor is something we can't even say for sure is this random, without the willing, and not seldom knowing, destruction mankind can and do, I can't point better example of "free will" at action.

Resuming: There's no better example of "free will" that decisions one takes knowing (or at least sensing) will prejudice mankind in the long course.

Edit: The bell curve representing the probabilities presented by Qquix is an interesting tool. Known the decision, the expected result and at least some influencing/influenced variables one can trace the probabilities with some degree of precision. Indeed there is a tool known as linear programming that uses this concept. Very alike that curve in determination of max and min problems (optimal). The main difference being the use of discrete steps instead a continuous curve.

OH well I had a reply and got the stupid error I am always getting when I try to post lately that the site timed out.

I am not going to re-compose the reply but I am pissed enough to post this.

Update this crap goes strieght through but a well thought out composition is just gone like dust.
!@#%&%$*&^)(*&{)(+__)*()(*&(*&%^$^$#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now every thing goes through instantaneously. I could scream. I tried to reproduce what I had written and it was Good. Now it is gone. Its not this site its the key logger the snoops are using to keep tabs on me. I had the thing gone and now its back.

I change my mind! As long as things like the CIA and secret societies exist there is no free will in this stinking world and no such thing as Democracy. Democracy demands free will and as long as agendas manipulate humanity there in no freedom, only the illusion of freedom.

Dude.....shut up.

Your country has two parties in the same wing, and only two parties. Is it any wonder you question your own freedom?

Dude suck my phallic lance and my rectum or shut up. Your pitiful choice.

I may have no freedom of choice but I exercise my right to slap you with the last vestiges of my freedom to speak!

How dare I turn on the brighter light. Heaven forbid we might see the filth so well hidden in the twilight most have accepted as truth. It might make us uncomfortable to "see" for a change.

Please ask yourself Who protects Canada, Who uses Canada, What is Canada. I have asked myself these questions about my Country and when I saw answers that I expected I looked for a deeper reality. I found none. But now I "see" things I know I can not look away from. Although I love the truth that should be I am shocked by what is.

Gamboling? Usury and abject slavery feed by predatory lending is destroying the American dream. Will Canada follow suit?

Blessed be Canada.
Canada be ware what is. Beware what may be coming.

That's not actually accurate, my Canadian friend. I am a proud member of the Libertarian party, which has over 200,000 registered members. That's not even counting the people who don't feel like registering as an official member.

And also, no, I really don't think the actual question matters.

Well, if the keylogger was on when you wrote the post, its contents are probably on record. Send an e-mail to IAOInfo@darpa.mil and see if they can't retrieve it for you. They may even be able to fix that software incompatibility you're talking about--but it's probably just because of a codec pack or something.

Please ask yourself Who protects Canada, Who uses Canada, What is Canada. I have asked myself these questions about my Country and when I saw answers that I expected I looked for a deeper reality. I found none. But now I "see" things I know I can not look away from. Although I love the truth that should be, I am shocked by what is.

Gamboling? Usury and abject slavery feed by predatory lending is destroying the American dream. Will Canada follow suit? A "work ethic" with little respect for the family unit has done much harm. There are those who fight for the family and such values as have sustained humanity for millennia. This is a noble fight and I pray wisdom prevails.

Blessed be Canada.
Canada be ware what is. Beware what may be coming. The family is the fermament of a sociaty and the first line of defence aginst the enemies of humanity. If you would prevail, embrace family and hold this one thing sacred.

RE the Keylogger
is not mine its in the network as an intercept. IE my drivel is gone and I got pissed for no good reason. Sorry.

RE:Libertarian party
has been used and abused. Your fight is right, but, it can not come to fruition without revolution. Down that path though lies much pain. I am afraid the majority is to comfortable in the dark. But there will be a time when the Libertarian ideals will prevail. Just not as soon as would be best for all. Thank you for your fight for a better way. 2147 may see the fruits of your cause begin to ripen. We can only hope on behalf of the children.

wwooooooooooooooooooooooooooowee. Sativarg's gone a little overboard.

Anyhow, American government has both it's major political parties on the same wing of the political spectrum, so I am not surprised that they question their own freedom.

I believe in free will. Scientific things are sometimes more speculation than fact or a complete understanding of something. My free will allows me to make good decisions and bad ones based on what I know or thinks to be fact or speculation.

But that perspective assumes something: that you're actually free to make a decision. Are you really "thinking" or are you just perceiving something (which appears to be thinking) that is actually a product of causal forces.

Does this matter? Not really (we'll never be able to tell the difference), but it is interesting to "think" about.

I think, therefore I am
I don't think, therefore I spam!

I have to disagree here (and steadfastly ignore the irrelevant political crap that started to pollute this otherwise interesting topic). The foundation of science is observation. Those observations are facts. From there, science seeks to determine the principles and mechanisms that lead to them. Science is the process, the toolset, for understanding reality, because if a speculation doesn't match the observed facts, science rejects that speculation. In other words, if an idea has no hard evidence to support it, it's not science at all. Speculations and hypotheses are made, yes. But if they can't be tested and potentially ruled out by experiment, they're worthless (this is why this so-called String "Theory" is not really a theory at all -- it can't be tested. Unless someone comes up with a way it can be tested, it remains a philosophy, not science). This is why I take issue with that statement.