Does free will exist?

you use science to safely predict something as much as possible, but you cannot 100% determine another persons actions. this proves the existence of free will.

put 5 strangers in a locked room, give one a gun, you cannot guarantee what that person will do.

unfalsifiable in that you cannot prove determinism.

...

Maybe I can. If I knew every atoms in the room, their position, their movement, etc... at time t, I could know it at time t+1. Therefore I could know what he's about to do. But in the real world, I can't do it, so that's irrelevant, but maybe we will be able to do it in the future.

There's a difference between the subjective possibility of predicting x versus the objective possibility of x happening.

In other words, we can't say that determinism is false based off the mere evidence of our inability to deterministically predict human actions; it's totally conceivable that human actions are deterministically caused, but such necessitating causes are too complex and minute for human minds to exhaustively understand and predict.

Can someone put some holes in this argument? Genuinely interested in replies that disprove this.

Can everyone agree that ones genetics and environment are the two broad factors which determine every part of their decision making, beliefs, entirety of their being, from the biological to the cognitive to the sociocultural. Can it also be agreed upon that a person has no control over either of these factors? Just as you cannot choose who your parents are you cannot choose where you are born, what friends and influences you meet, etc. Because of this you have no true free will. You can make choices and decisions, but its ultimately all a result of your biology and environment. On a similar level do not all processes of the universe follow certain consistent laws? (I actually don't know about this one, quantum mechanics is weird) therefore isn't possible that given access to all possible information you should be able to predict literally everything? And that also all events beforehand were meant to happen and could not have happened any other way?
This
And this

I am pretty sure Schopenhauer didn't think we have free will
"you can do what you want but you cannot want what you want"

Uncertainty principle

For Schopenhauer, an individual's will is free in that it is attracted towards what it is attracted towards, without any external cause capable of altering its fundamental essence; the empirical behavior of an individual's lifetime is only the spatiotemporally stretched-out appearance of the groundless, inexplicable, free spontaneity of their transcendental self. In other words, a person's empirical character operates deterministically, while their intelligible character is free.

"Freedom" for Schopenhauer is defined negatively, as the absence of necessitation, the absence of determination - and thus the absence of any rational or perceivable rules of order. Thus, at bottom, for each of us to be free (and, more deeply,for each of us to be manifestations of the metaphysically single thing-in-itself, blind and omnipotent and lawlessly free) is for each of us to be ungoverned by rules of logic or morals, striving without reason, without control, without premeditated mercy for ourselves or for others. This is the sense in whichm at bottom, there is freedom of the will.

>put 5 strangers in a locked room, give one a gun, you cannot guarantee what that person will do.
everyone flocks to the gun reasoning the least risky course of action is to ensure that they are in position of the gun to ensure their life is not at the mercy of the other four unknown people in the room but gradually they commit suicide because they can't deal with the pressure that results from the other people telling them to relinquish the gun until eventually everyone in the room commits suicide

prove me wrong protip you literally cannot

Because I identify as a Cobra-kin, I am incapable of free will, like all machines.

i read a short anthology of schop's essays and I thought his opinions on free will were clear enough but your elucidation has definitely added to my understanding, thanks

The strongest and fastest reaches the gun first. He kills the next strongest until the others agree to submit to him. Eventually the others find this arrangement intolerable and attack to get the gun where they are too executed. Eventually only the weakest is remaining to oppose the strongest and that person can submit and obey, or revolt to get the gun and risk death like the others. The longer he waits the stronger he feels the threat of the strongest. His biology is telling him to fear the strong and to fight back before he too is killed. His environment is telling him that all who resist the rule of the wrong suffer death. What does he do?

Free will exists.

1.The thoughts and behaviors are consistently aligned with neurocircuitry, brainstates, the biology of the brain overall

2.Laws of physics are deterministic, they work in their archetypical patterns, you can apply the gravitational, atomic etc laws in different situations and the output will be consistent.

3.The brain, like any other object in the known universe is operated under the same principles, the same physical laws

4.Chaos/complexity != random
A phenomenon can potentially be complex beyond our measurements, the outcome will be the same even if we can't measure it

5.Chaos theory is the study of chaotic systems, which have variables and variable relationships too complex and/or too numerous to formulate, measure and extrapolate results with precision

6.The brain can be hyper-complex but that shouldn't imply it is operated outside the parameters of physics.

7.No, quantum mechanics don't provide any reason to believe in free will

8.Even if we forcibly incoropated the uncertainty
of QM into your brain physiology it would result in you being partly deterministic and partly random, no "will" whatsoever.
9. Emotional attachement:
There is something intrinsic to the desire of wanting to be the author of your fate and identity that fuels the rationalization and selective attention that reinforces the eerie and romantic notion of a Will untethered by corporeal chains.

10.Free Will, not only does not dwell within is but it cannot emerge anywhere in this universe.
Even if you injected magic and God into our universe, the problem would follow as it does.

It is an impossibilty, a falacy of thought, a paradox emerged from primordial urges.

Arguing for free will through phenomena isn't really falsifiable either. Phenomena can lie to us and we have no certain way of knowing. The whole debate is falsely phrased because it presupposes causality - something never observed, only inferred, with no additional explanatory power beyond assuming certain sequences simply repeat themselves frequently.

Wow, just vaguely allude to strong emergence and call it a day, huh? I don't see what's so trivial about being made of particles that makes people get so autistic about it.

You can concoct imaginary scenarios without being able to account for all variables present, and falsely portray a dichotomy between "biology" and "environment" without any real knowledge of sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and how they alter decision making in the brain - which is itself a process not totally understood. Therefore, human agency is magically out of step with the rest of the universe. Damn son. This shit reminds me of the "god of the gaps" arguments that creationists use - free will just fits convenient holes in our understanding in a way that emotionally satisfies people but doesn't really explain anything further or predict anything useful beyond fitting those gaps.

"Why did the man do X?"
"Durr I dunno, FREE WILL I guess. Stop trying to explain shit, faglord."

Even if we ignore probabilism and determinism-
Think about all of the things we cannot do, and think of all the things we MUST do to even be able to will. You cannot honestly tell me that the will we possess is free in any sense.

So Syrian government uses chemical weapons and President Obama doesn't retaliate.

Syrian government uses chemical weapons and President Trump does retaliate.

So Obama was biologically and environmentally incapable at doing what Trump was able to do? Obama even declared and arbitrary red line and then did nothing. But its not his fault because his brain wouldn't let him retaliate because this brain patterns were already set to determine that he wouldn't. He was literally incapable of doing anything other than doing nothing. Trump on the other hand is wired to want to shoot missiles and there is no possibility that he wouldn't retaliate. His biology and his environment male that a certainty.

The advisors walked into the room and told Obama, ok according to precedence of U.S. Foreign Policy, established war doctrine, and the red line you just drew in the sand we should strike Syrian government forces to diminish thier capability to use chemical weapons and his robot brain just turned the gears and calculated the answer "No".

Meanwhile, the same problem happens, the same military advisors walk in with briefings written by the same defense analysts and CIA opinions and tell Trump basically the same thing and his brain and experience make it.impossible for him to say anything except yes.

Am I the only person worried that the President of the United States, the commander of thr most armed and nuclear weapon armed force in the world doesn't have free will. No matter what happens, no matter what the inherent logic of the situation, no matter what the evidence is, or the possibilities may be, that person has no free will and just responds automatically to every event without free will. Doesn't this call into question the very nature of representative government if the elected leader isn't even capable of deciding one thing from the other or making decisions. If elected officials just follow programing despite the reality of the situation with no faculty for any type of cognitive reason they just vote according to their arbitrary experiences and biology.

I thought about it for a while. I've come to terms with it because the existence of free-will is largely meaningless.

No, magic does not exist

it literally makes no difference, and there will never ever been an answer to this question

free-will is just a nonsensical term

Retard

This nigga knows what's up, couldn't have said it better myself

Yes and no, you have the ability to cave your friends head in with that hammer but your brain subconsciously weighs up the pros and cons of such an act as to what would be beneficial to you in the long and short term

Not free will does not exist.

But you're still responsible for your actions you filthy nihilist.

>laws of physics are deterministic
nope. you're thinking of large scale models like newtonian mechanics and general relativity which both don't work at small scales. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

You mentioned QM but you don't seem to understand that you can't be entirely certain about a particle's position and momentum at a given time. also consequently there's always going to be an uncertainty in an energy measurement and the time interval during which the measurement was made. you can never know both, one or the other is ALWAYS necessarily uncertain.

If you understood this, you would not be saying that the "laws of physics are deterministic". They aren't. This is wrong.

With that said, that doesn't mean the universe isn't deterministic; you think the movement of things can be calculated and we can always know how things will go from one moment to the next. this is inherently impossible given our current knowledge.

>Chaos theory
This is where you're completely wrong again. Chaos theory belongs to the framework of classical physics. It doesn't work with QM in any capacity. Electrons exist in probability distributions and there is always uncertainty. The probabilistic nature of QM directly contradicts chaos theory

>quantum mechanics don't provide any reason to believe in free will
sure, but it also provides uncertainty to the notion that we don't have free will. fundamentally, everything is probabilistic.
>

>you have the ability to cave your friends head in with that hammer but your brain subconsciously weighs up the pros and cons of such an act as to what would be beneficial to you in the long and short term

But if your brain weighed those pros and cons and found out that caving your friends heads in with a hammer, it's not like you had a choice in that either.

Regardless of what you think about psychopaths or serial killers for example, they are in fact quite unlucky in that they have the genetics of psychopaths and serial killers.

found out caving your friends heads in with a hammer was the better option*

Notv trying to join the debate, especially with just a Wikipedia article,, but food for thought for you and everyone else reading about this

I'm predestined to have free will.

I've evolved to act as if I have free will*

It exists as an idea.

>If I knew every atoms in the room, their position, their movement, etc... at time t, I could know it at time t+1.
>Actually believing in Newton's clockwork universe
AHAHAHAHA Do you even Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Yes.

Anyone that says otherwise is a responsibility shirking manchild.

No, you are not responsible for your actions if there is no free will, arguing otherwise only proves the above point.

But what if I'm uncertain about the Uncertainty Principle?

>mfw reductive materialists don't fully grasp the concept and the restraints of science.
Reductive materialism only works for reductive materialist

Do ideas exist?

Are they invented or discovered?

But what if I'm an almost reduced non-reductive orthodox liberal Traditionalist atheist christian civic nationalist?

Define what free will is, brainlet.

According to the Bible. Yes and no.

Computers don't have free will. Therefore humans don't. Humans are basically computers with lots of memory and continuous updates.

No, your actions are guided by the collective agreement on right and wrong.

Computers don't have noses. therefore humans don't.

I specifically made sure to point out that the uncertainty principle doesn't mean free will is a thing; you'll never be able to prove free will. However, it does give uncertainty to the fact that we don't have free will.

Will exists. Freedom is a good word for the manifest effect of the will.

u were prolle memeing but
you can be uncertain all you want but it doesn't overwrite the uncertainty the uncertainty principle gives to not having free will

To a limited degree. You don't choose your circumstances, this is obvious, but you don't choose your THOUGHTS either. They just seem to pop into being in our consciousness fully formed, the processes by which we "assemble" our thoughts are all subconscious and so out of the realm of will. We can, however, choose NOT to act on the thoughts and impulses that pop into our heads, and indeed people with sever frontal lobe damage lose this ability suggesting that this "inhibiting effect" is tied closely to what makes us uniquely human and in any event is the only possible foundation for "free will" in a human context.

>Can everyone agree

No. Now get the fuck out.

Free will "free = less = without". Unless you are an inanimate object you have will.

if

You are free to not invent the telephone.

Lol easy to prove you wrong in this case. The person you are responsing to said you "give one a gun," not have them scramble for it. If you read the one sentence in its entirety, you would know this. And this changes the situation dramatically

First, quantum mechanics doesn't help free will. Wrong scale. Your supposedly "freely chosen" decisions are not split second actions at the quantum level, because quantum blips are outside of your conscious control, whereas intentional behavior involves whole regions of the brain. So appeals to quantum mechanics are desparate.

However, we have free will. It's not that complicated. Determinism only applies to the world of appearances and phenomena, whereas freedom is a necessary postulate of practical reason pertaining to noumena. I mean this is elementary shit that everyone always seems to forget somehow lol

Thanks heidegger, misguided etymologies and identifications are always lots of fun to seethe over