Well their right to a point. Every outside variable we come across changes our destiny so what is exactly free will. For instance if 5 causes happen that make me take choice A. But if 6 causes happen I could pick B. or if 1 cause happens I could go route C. So I think there probably no such thing as true free will, but merely as close as we can get to it accounting for the outside variables that alter our choices. Wow a lil too deep for me.

If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

This also falls in line with an argument that everything we do is because of some original want or need. Wanting to get education, etc., these goals taint all our choice so none of the choices are actually free and have been predetermined by these preset goals. This is probably true because there are so many constraints once you are on a path to achieve something.

True time to exercise your free will is when someone wants you to do something that goes against your moral codex... sadly many people seem to opt out.

 

The path of life can have many forks,it is possible to live a good live,stay on

the high road.Fun and jest on this Forum is another fork,your path widens ,narrows.

Its bends,so you don't see the end,not yet.

 

As for free will, I'm simply going to say this: Your overall choice between, let's say Option A, B, and C, can be influenced by your environment. We'll use your example again, Max, but hopefully simplified a bit. Let's say Cause 1, Cause 2, and Cause 3 happen, and because of them you choose option C. That choice is your own "free will", but it is influenced by Causes 1, 2, and 3. Without free will, you may be forced to take option A instead.

It is not free will because Cause 1, Cause 2, Cause 3, influenced you so.

For example, you really like Artist X, so there must be some reason why you like him, which is not free will. Okay, we know for sure this is totally not free will.

Example 2, we have to choose between color I and color II, then we chose color I, there must be some variable in our unconscious mind that causes to choose it. So, no free will!

 

Personally, I think there is quite a bit of unintentional sophistry going on.

As someone pointed out early in the thread, the discussion of Free Will can't be divorced from an agreed upon definition. As far as I know (and I haven't done any searches to back it up, so it is truly "AFAIK") the original debate regarding Free Will was in contrast to Predetermination. If predetermination rules, then what happens to someone and what that person does are, in essence, engraved in stone before the person is even born and they have absolutely zero control over their own lives. Free Will, on the other hand, does NOT say that people are without constraints, can make any choice they want, and do not have to endure the consequences of their choices. If that's the definition of Free Will that someone wants to use, then the entire discussion is absurd from the get go since it would mean that I would have to be able to choose to jump off the Empire State building and not have to pay the consequences associated with hitting the pavement a hundred stories later. Instead, the concept of Free Will merely says that a person has the ability to choose how they will act within the range of physically available options. It does not say that all of those choices are equally likely or that their prior and present circumstances have no influence over which choice they will ultimately make. The guy with the explosives strapped around his neck still had the Free Will to choose between carrying out the instructions to rob the bank, sitting down and refusing to do so, trying to get the explosives off of his neck, attacking his captor, and a slew of other options physically available to him. That a particular option can be identified as the one that most people in the same situation would probably take does not alter the fact that each of them still had the option to choose from amount many different actions and made the choice of which one to pursue.

In order for there not to be Free Will, then we have to conclude that every single "decision" we make (whether to change the station on the radio or take a shower on a particular day) is the direct, inescapable, unalterable result of forces entirely and completely beyond anyone's control. In a little bit I am going to go out and get some firewood. Is the fact that I haven't done so yet but have chosen to type this post instead of doing things the other way around truly something that I have no control over? When I go out I will have to decide whether to put on a coat or just go out as is since I will only be out there for a few minutes. I have to decide whether to take the time to put on gloves or to use by bare hands and risk getting some splinters. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Is each of those apparent decisions truly a result of factors beyond my control and, in actuality, it is not possible for me to make a different choice?

As for the tree -- if we are defining "sound" in terms of pressure waves, then it most certainly does NOT require a human (or any other) ear to be present. The variations in are pressure still occurred and may well have had profound influences. The pressure waves may have shaken loose a leaf on a nearby tree that had a caterpiller on it. By falling to the ground the caterpiller is eaten by some other animal and never becomes the butterfly that flaps its wings and starts the chain of events that results in the hurricane.

 

It is not free will because Cause 1, Cause 2, Cause 3, influenced you so.

For example, you really like Artist X, so there must be some reason why you like him, which is not free will. Okay, we know for sure this is totally not free will.

Example 2, we have to choose between color I and color II, then we chose color I, there must be some variable in our unconscious mind that causes to choose it. So, no free will!

See the second part of my post, Lightfire.

 

I'm more "the tree falls in the forest" type. I don't know if the tree had free will, but I define sound as changes in air pressure or movement, so I believe it makes a sound. The idea that sound can not exist if a human doesn't hear it seems grandiose to me.

Exactly what if a deer heard it? Eardrums picked up the vibrations. So are you saying sound is strictly a human phenom? A living phenom? or a science phenom?

 

Exactly what if a deer heard it? Eardrums picked up the vibrations. So are you saying sound is strictly a human phenom? A living phenom? or a science phenom?

If a deer heard it, then sure, the air waves the tree makes will be converted to "sound". There is nothing in the question saying anything about any living creatures nearby. In fact, the actual question describes a solitary tree, meaning there is nothing or nobody to "hear" it. I define "sound" as the electrical signals that your brain interprets. The airwaves with changing frequency only create these signals when they are picked up with an ear drum.

Instead, I have a slightly adapted question for you:

A tree falls in the woods
And crushes solitary mime
Does it make a sound?

 

as far as I know, sound are the waves propagating through the waves that could be heard. Just because they were not heard does not mean there was no sound made...

Back on topic... Kant discussed free will linking it to morality and that is closest to my own values

"Like Kant, we can accept the how and why of our freedom as unknowable. Moreover, we can argue that whether we indeed do have freedom is unprovable. But given its possibility, we can also assert that freedom is presupposed in our efforts to strive for our betterment.

To try to improve ourselves, we must presume freedom. To create a just world, we must affirm freedom. To morally legislate, we must hypothesize freedom. As rational beings we should do no other."

It would make for an interesting justice system if we were to accept that there is no free will and every action is predetermined by your circumstance. The outcome will be then that no individual is responsible for their actions as they had no choice, sounds interesting.

 

If a deer heard it, then sure, the air waves the tree makes will be converted to "sound". There is nothing in the question saying anything about any living creatures nearby. In fact, the actual question describes a solitary tree, meaning there is nothing or nobody to "hear" it. I define "sound" as the electrical signals that your brain interprets. The airwaves with changing frequency only create these signals when they are picked up with an ear drum.

Instead, I have a slightly adapted question for you:

A tree falls in the woods
And crushes solitary mime
Does it make a sound?

When I hear the riddle I picture a tree naturally falling in the forest. Thus there would obviously be other animals around to hear it, even if those sound vibrations vibrate leaves of another tree. Its a response to the sound.

 

I see a pie chart, with varying percentages.

Some of our reasons for making decisions are based on;
habit
upbringing
lazyness
mood
random chance
and of course; external influence

People absolutely do have free will. They are also lousy decision makers and are also easily influenced by others.

 

A tree falls in the woods
And crushes solitary mime
Does it make a sound?

Yes because the mime would hear the tree falling or the impact of the tree before it could fatally injure him so even if its in a "Matrix type loading roam" it would still make a sound even if only for 0.02 seconds.

 

When I hear the riddle I picture a tree naturally falling in the forest. Thus there would obviously be other animals around to hear it, even if those sound vibrations vibrate leaves of another tree. Its a response to the sound.

It is a response to the air moved by the falling tree.

I guess, just like free will, that you can't answer the question without defining "sound". And since we really can't define sound (the definition varies from person to person), then the question cannot be answered. Just like the question posed in this thread regarding free will. There is no right or wrong answer.

 

Okay.

What makes us like someone/something? Example: We like Ben Ten so much.

 

Yes because the mime would hear the tree falling or the impact of the tree before it could fatally injure him so even if its in a "Matrix type loading roam" it would still make a sound even if only for 0.02 seconds.

Not sure you understood. It was a joke--If a mime is alone in the woods, and he's hit by a falling tree, does HE make a sound?

 

Sorry for posting somewhat off-topic post. O_O

It just came to my mind. I have read somewhere that when you dislike someone at first sight, it is from unconscious mind. Maybe this someone reminds you of someone you totally dislike or whatnot.

So, it came to my mind. So, what makes us something/someone? Does liking someone has influential factors? Maybe because we like Ben Ten because he's the first cartoon show we watched as a kid or so.

 

Sorry for posting somewhat off-topic post. O_O

It just came to my mind. I have read somewhere that when you dislike someone at first sight, it is from unconscious mind. Maybe this someone reminds you of someone you totally dislike or whatnot.

So, it came to my mind. So, what makes us something/someone? Does liking someone has influential factors? Maybe because we like Ben Ten because he's the first cartoon show we watched as a kid or so.

It's definitely possible Lightfire. A book you may enjoy reading is "Blink", by Malcolm Gladwell. It's all about first impressions and subconscious thinking. You might find it interesting.

 

It would make for an interesting justice system if we were to accept that there is no free will and every action is predetermined by your circumstance. The outcome will be then that no individual is responsible for their actions as they had no choice, sounds interesting.

Not really. Think you need to re-read WBahn's post.


@general
I'm kinda amazed by the general absolute thinking on the subject (actually not limited to this subject, but that's a other matter.)

Maybe adding some relativity on the subject should be attempted. Example: Just become some imaginary super computer might be able predict your deterministic future based on its data on you and your environment (now and future). Don't changes the fact that you still can, and have to make decisions. What IS limiting you in your available choices is lack of knowledge, experience and last, but definitively not least, the willingness to explore more options* (other than your own convictions.)

*) (points of view) for starters.

On a other note: Its a fact that humans are easily influenced. That to me opens up the fact that a individuals environment also has a given responsibility here. Arguing that a individual is completely responsibility for his actions is of course driven by the general human desire to be/feel only responsible for good thing, and not for perceived bad things. (and its also dismissing the potential effects of hormonal influences. ... And the need to say sorry.)


General related subjects: Chaos theory (butterfly)', and self recursion.

 

Not really, I agree with WBahn's post as is. You would know that if you had read all of my posts more carefully, perhaps? That last comment relates to current views of determinism, which put all events as predetermined, this view means that your decisions have already been made for you by your previous decisions, and so on and any feeling that you are making a choice is an illusion. You might want to read up some more on it. I do not like this view, nor do I believe in it. I prefer original writings by Kant, as I have cited earlier, who ties morality to free will by necessity.

"Determinism is a far-reaching term affecting many areas of concern, that most widely and radically states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe and of our world holds all events to be simply the effects of other prior effects. This has radical and far-reaching implications for morality, science, and religion. If general, radical, determinism is correct, then all events in the future are unalterable, as are all events in the past. A major consequence of this is that human freedom is simply an illusion."

So in this view, I may think that I chose not to go grocery shopping yesterday and instead catch up on GM salmon push by FDA, but the choice was already made for me by my previous experiences - in this case the need for information somehow won out over the need for food, and it is cold outside.

P.S. By the way, are you wondering about the absolute thinking in the existing theories? Because that is what they are, they are absolute, with no grey area. One absolute - free will exists, yes it can be influenced by many factors (there are many thought experiments that you can do on this). The other absolute, there is no free will - determinism.

 

Not really, I agree with WBahn's post as is. You would know that if you had read all of my posts more carefully, perhaps? That last comment relates to current views of determinism, which put all events as predetermined, this view means that your decisions have already been made for you by your previous decisions, and so on and any feeling that you are making a choice is an illusion. You might want to read up some more on it. I do not like this view, nor do I believe in it. I prefer original writings by Kant, as I have cited earlier, who ties morality to free will by necessity.

"Determinism is a far-reaching term affecting many areas of concern, that most widely and radically states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe and of our world holds all events to be simply the effects of other prior effects. This has radical and far-reaching implications for morality, science, and religion. If general, radical, determinism is correct, then all events in the future are unalterable, as are all events in the past. A major consequence of this is that human freedom is simply an illusion."

So in this view, I may think that I chose not to go grocery shopping yesterday and instead catch up on GM salmon push by FDA, but the choice was already made for me by my previous experiences - in this case the need for information somehow won out over the need for food, and it is cold outside.

P.S. By the way, are you wondering about the absolute thinking in the existing theories? Because that is what they are, they are absolute, with no grey area. One absolute - free will exists, yes it can be influenced by many factors (there are many thought experiments that you can do on this). The other absolute, there is no free will - determinism.

Well said.

To be honest, I think people might be over-thinking this. There IS no right or wrong answer. The belief in free will alone boils down to many different relating factors. You can present as many examples of free will as you like to support your belief, but no matter how much you say, the other side will match it. You can't win, you can't lose. It's as simple as that.

In fact, we almost seem to be getting into the religious aspects, which not only makes it difficult to discuss logically, but also is frowned upon here at AAC. Personally, I'm thinking I'll stand back in the shadows for the rest of this one. Not sure I'd like to be a major part in it

Best wishes,
Matt

 

Not sure you understood. It was a joke--If a mime is alone in the woods, and he's hit by a falling tree, does HE make a sound?

Who cares?

There was a funny true story of a small AA baseball team that did great promo nights. One time they had a "disco inferno" and anybody who brought a disco record got in free to the game.... and they had a bonfire in center field of all the records.

They couldn't afford a giant "jumbotron" scoreboard to sho replays so they hired a mime to stand near first base. After a close play at first, the mime would "act out" the replay.

It was a great strategy because hot dog sales went way up as people delighted in buying hot dogs to throw at the mime....