Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Chemistry, determinism, and free will!

Chemistry, determinism, and free will!

Sickman - 4-1-2012 at 04:08

Chemical reactions vs free will!

There are scores of chemical reactions and chemical behaviors that have been admitted, empirically, to the collective knowledge of mankind and have been labeled as "science" and a multitude have ultimately been "limited" by established "laws of science" while other chemical behaviors and reactions fall under the category of a "rule" with notable "exceptions".

It has been known for along time now (at least since 1828 when Friedrich Wöhler created the organic compound "urea" from inorganic reagents) that the organic chemical compounds of which living bodies are composed have, in some cases, been derived through synthetic means, thus discrediting Vitalism. Likewise, the Bible boldly states:

In the sweat of thy face
shalt thou eat bread, till thou
return unto the ground; for out
of it wast thou taken: for dust
thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return. Genesis 3:19 KJB

indicating a view, long held by Bible believers, that the living body is essentially dust and that when a man shall die:

Then shall the dust return to
the earth as it was: and the
spirit shall return unto God
who gave it. Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJB

And so it may arise in modern thought, when the question of free will arises, that our knowledge of chemistry is called into question to produce an answer to the question: Does free will exist? and if so: to what limit can it be reduced down to?

To put the matter another way, supposing: that people have free will and people's bodies are made of, at least in part, of chemicals that can readily be produced from inorganic (non-living) reagents, and these inorganic reagents themselves are made up of atoms, do:

1) Atoms have free will?
2) If not, do organic molecules made of atoms have free will?
3) If not, then how do humans, whose bodies are made up of organic molecules, which do not have free will, which are in turn made up of atoms, which do not have free will, impose their free will upon the atoms of their bodies?

4) Naturally, another question arises: if atoms are restricted by natural laws and common rules, do these cause a human's free will to be restricted by the atoms that they are manipulating? If so, is the restriction merely superficial? ( the imagination of the human will being unlimited, but whose practice finds its limits in the atoms it's given to control? )

Some of my thoughts on the matter:
A. If it is true that any given atom will always behave exactly the same under exactly the same conditions then every event can be explained away by pointing to the conditions under which the event occurred. If this is true then atoms:
1) don't have free will, because their freedom is infinitely reduced by the circumstances of their existence,
2) atoms have free will, but always make the same choice given the same set of choices, which is why their free will cannot be established by any empirical means. ( this assumption is problematic because it assumes "alternative choices" are possible but can never be observed because of the atoms unwillingness to ever change their behavior when given the same " alternative choices".
3) Atoms don't have free will, but any agents who do have "free will" and that are, by virtue of their freedom, able to manipulate the circumstances of atoms, are therefore able to "determine" how the atom(s) shall behave. (this assumption is simple and useful in that it would predict that, when two free wills are in opposition, that whatever the prevailing conditions the opposing wills create will determine how the atoms shall behave.
4) Atoms have free will, but it cannot be observed because they always choose to behave according to the prevailing conditions, prevailing conditions which are determined by agents of free will acting according to their ability.

I do not here deal much with how prevailing conditions are determined by agents of free will, but it is assummed that a given event can be attributed to a single will acting alone, or two or more in harmony, or two or more in various degrees and arrangments of cooperation and or opposition!

So, Why do atoms seem to behave the same way always under the same conditions?

1) If: because they have to, because their freedom is infinitely restricted by the circumstances of their existence: then what is it that finally determines the conditions under which they exist?

2) If: because they choose to: then why are they so damn consistent in their choices? (Not neccesarily a fallacy, but is more or less restricted to faith for lack of empirical observability: nonfalsifiable).

This thread is purposed to open thoughts on the matter of free will and especially address if free will can be directly or indirectly observed in the behaviour of atoms, at any given scale, and to discuss agents of free will and their ability to effect an atoms behaviour.

Endimion17 - 4-1-2012 at 06:14

Gather around, children, it's Bible study time!

Adas - 4-1-2012 at 06:21

I had some problems to understand this, but I will try to answer some of your questions.

1) Atoms have free will?
- That depends on your wiew. Answer is in the texts below.

2) If not, do organic molecules made of atoms have free will?
- They are some atoms joined together and their behaviour is somehow combined.

3) If not, then how do humans, whose bodies are made up of organic molecules, which do not have free will, which are in turn made up of atoms, which do not have free will, impose their free will upon the atoms of their bodies?
- You were citing Bible. In Bible is also written, that God gave free will to us. We can feel our free will, because we can decide what to do, but we decide depending to facts and actions around us or in our minds (because we can think). We don't decide without any "impulse". This is something like: If you don't give an input to, for example a computer, it can't respond. Our brain is very complex and we decide dependind on millions of facts and actions, our thoughts and know-hows.

4) Naturally, another question arises: if atoms are restricted by natural laws and common rules, do these cause a human's free will to be restricted by the atoms that they are manipulating? If so, is the restriction merely superficial? ( the imagination of the human will being unlimited, but whose practice finds its limits in the atoms it's given to control? )
- I can't respond to this question, because I barely understand it.

So, Why do atoms seem to behave the same way always under the same conditions?

1) If: because they have to, because their freedom is infinitely restricted by the circumstances of their existence: then what is it that finally determines the conditions under which they exist?
- "their freedom is infinitely restricted by the circumstances of their existence" - that is our freedom too, but atoms are very simple, you can say that they have "free will", but they can respond to so few stimuli, that I think it's negligible. As I stated before, our minds are very complex, but we also decide depending on inputs that we can percieve and analyse. You can say we are very limited, but on the other side you can say we have a lot of free will.

I hope my responses gave you the answers that you wanted.

Pulverulescent - 4-1-2012 at 06:26

Well, just to throw a wanner in the sporks, I believe that (in the absolute sense) free will cannot exist since every thought, action or circumstance is ultimately dependent on what went before!
But the 'problem of life' is certainly a vexing one . . .
And let's face it --- we can't even properly define what life is any more than they could in Ancient Greece, FFS?
Thought provoking stuff, though, Sickman!
This, BTW, looks like the start of a looong thread?

[edit] We're hostages, all of us,

and that can never change!
P

[Edited on 4-1-2012 by Pulverulescent]

Pulverulescent - 4-1-2012 at 06:56

Hmmm! That scraping noise, BTW, is Rosco sharpening up his oft wielded, decidedly non-metaphysical 'weaponry'!

And sorry Rosco, the temptation was just too great!

jamit - 4-1-2012 at 08:21

The question of free will only applies to conscious animal and human beings and not to simple atoms and molecules. Even though all living things are made of molecules, there comes a point when a complex set of molecules reaches a point of being "conscious". It is at this point that the question becomes meaningful to ask whether something possesses free will. All living things possesses free will to varying degrees... That my take on the subject.

neptunium - 4-1-2012 at 08:28

i dont beleive in free will for anybody or any atoms ...
but since i am a simple man who dont understand the complex behaviors of humans i would go with what i do know and somewhat understand..

QUANTUM MECHANICS.

the set of rules and laws established at the big bang havent changed and although simple in nature they gave rise to infinite complexity .
Atoms dont have free will our mind is "wired" to ask questions and make hypothesis on the behaviors of particles .
sometimes things happen that arent suppose to but they do anyway ..again quantum mechanic can address that problem in the probability chapter .
lots of crazy things in that quantum physics...makes you really wonder who the hell is in charge here... if anyone !
it would be silly in my view to denied atoms free will and to beleive we have one ...just like a building doesnt have free will neither does the bricks its made of..
there is only 4 laws to govern the universe ... it is not negociable.

Pulverulescent - 4-1-2012 at 09:59

Quote:

QUANTUM MECHANICS.

the set of rules and laws established at the big bang havent changed and although simple in nature they gave rise to infinite complexity.

So according to the 'Big Bang Theory', infinite complexity came directly from absolute homogeneity ─ how did that work?

P

Endimion17 - 4-1-2012 at 12:38

Because of the uncertainty principle, we can not check whether we have a free will. Therefore, even if we don't (probably, because our mind is extremely complex particle interaction, and to predict its actions would require gathering all of the information of its particles in one point of time, which is IMPOSSIBRU), it doesn't matter. It's as we truly have it. Simple and elegant.

Pulverulescent - 4-1-2012 at 13:10

Quote:

Because of the uncertainty principle, we can not check whether we have a free will.

Hmmm! Our possession of free will, or lack thereof would, at the time, likely have been purely incidental to Heisenberg's own lines of thought . . .
But, the ever-evolving human brain might, in some way, be seen as an ongoing, determined attempt by matter to understand itself?

P

phlogiston - 4-1-2012 at 14:25

Quantum mechanics also says that atoms DO NOT behave the same every time, even under exactly the same conditions. Whenever you measure a small particle's properties, it will 'decide' at that moment what the result is going to be. Quantum mechanics only predicts the range of possible outcomes of measurements and their relative probabilities. Some very improbably things can happen, they are just very unlikely (e.g. an electron spinning around an atom in your brain can decide to jump to the moon for instance).

So, you could perhaps interpret that as free will. Atoms, and all particles are free to decide what they do and where they go at any time and there is not a single person in the world that can currently predict what its 'decisions' are going to be untill you measure the outcome. (and in fact, several lines of evidence suggest that it is actually impossible to do so even in principle).

Endimion17 - 4-1-2012 at 14:40

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Quote:

Because of the uncertainty principle, we can not check whether we have a free will.

Attempt to understand itself implies an innate mind and free will, and if you use that "solution", you're back at the start again, and you don't solve anything. Plus you can't prove it, therefore it's useless.

I like to jump ahead and use the phrase "it happens to be". Matter happened to condense and organize itself in a way to produce conscious stuff.
Funny and interesting, all it took were basic laws and particle quantum numbers... and enough time.

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

Quantum mechanics also says that atoms DO NOT behave the same every time, even under exactly the same conditions. Whenever you measure a small particle's properties, it will 'decide' at that moment what the result is going to be. Quantum mechanics only predicts the range of possible outcomes of measurements and their relative probabilities. Some very improbably things can happen, they are just very unlikely (e.g. an electron spinning around an atom in your brain can decide to jump to the moon for instance).

So, you could perhaps interpret that as free will. Atoms, and all particles are free to decide what they do and where they go at any time and there is not a single person in the world that can currently predict what its 'decisions' are going to be untill you measure the outcome. (and in fact, several lines of evidence suggest that it is actually impossible to do so even in principle).

That, plus chaos. I'd say chaos plays a major role.

neptunium - 4-1-2012 at 18:48

chaos is just another way to say ...its far too complex to predict...
all we can do is assign probability to any given event to happen or not.
but it doesnt mean it couldnt be ...in theory.

we could sit here and argue for hours about our faith and thoughts on the matter ,as of today we cannot prove or even detect how many attempt and how long it took the universe to create this one where conscious beings are thinking about it...

i am sorry i lack the ability to express myself on a keyboard ...i wasnt paying attention at school in grammar and spelling...kept it for math physics and chemistry..

AndersHoveland - 4-1-2012 at 21:47

Could it be possible that physical reality is actually a representation or manifestation of something else? In which case, both determinism and free will could potentially simultaneously hold true. One way of viewing this is that, although our actions were predetermined by natural laws and seeming randomness, the exact order of the sequence of events that leads to our decission is itself caused by our spirit.

Free will, free from determinism, simply has no place within the scientific understanding of reality. The only possible understanding of free will from a scientific perspective is that free will itself is predetermined.

As there currently is no way to directly correlate any understanding of spirit with observed reality, the subject of free will is best left out of a science forum.

phlogiston - 5-1-2012 at 01:45

Recently, strong evidence has appeared suggesting that free will and consciousness may be illusions, actually.
In one such sttudy, volunteers were asked to press any of two buttons at random whenever they decided to. They also had to indicite to the researchers as soon as they made the decision to do so and their brains were being scanned with fMRI. The scans revealed identifyable patterns several seconds before the subjects indicated having reached a decision... The researchers were able to predict the decision and even which button the subject was going to press several seconds before the subject him/herself!

It strongly suggests that the 'decisions' you think you make are actually formed through some subconscious process that may very well be deterministic, and you are only made aware of it later on, and then perceive the illusion that you made that decision consciously.

Endimion17 - 5-1-2012 at 05:32

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

chaos is just another way to say ...its far too complex to predict...
all we can do is assign probability to any given event to happen or not.
but it doesnt mean it couldnt be ...in theory.

we could sit here and argue for hours about our faith and thoughts on the matter ,as of today we cannot prove or even detect how many attempt and how long it took the universe to create this one where conscious beings are thinking about it...

i am sorry i lack the ability to express myself on a keyboard ...i wasnt paying attention at school in grammar and spelling...kept it for math physics and chemistry..

Chaos means "it's too complicated to predict" but uncertainty principle says that you can't predict it precisely at all. It is truly impossible.
All we can do is to talk about probabilities of certain events, even if the chance is almost 0 or almost 1.

You're wrong about the universe part, though. We now know the time spans of Solar system formation, chemical and biological evolution. It's not precise, but it doesn't matter.

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland

Could it be possible that physical reality is actually a representation or manifestation of something else? In which case, both determinism and free will could potentially simultaneously hold true. One way of viewing this is that, although our actions were predetermined by natural laws and seeming randomness, the exact order of the sequence of events that leads to our decission is itself caused by our spirit.

Free will, free from determinism, simply has no place within the scientific understanding of reality. The only possible understanding of free will from a scientific perspective is that free will itself is predetermined.

As there currently is no way to directly correlate any understanding of spirit with observed reality, the subject of free will is best left out of a science forum.

No, you're wrong. The subject of free will is in the domain of science and is being studied.
"Spirit" is not, because it doesn't have a definition. I could invent a word like snoquar and say "it's that... something... something that makes the heat go around... you know... snoquar".

Any attempt to drive in undefined, theologic (theology is a branch of philosophy, not science!) concepts in a rational discussion about brain functions will fail. It's not scientific, and anyone's personal beliefs, no matter how irrational might be (because they really stretch from "my late dog takes care of me from heavens" to "I'll get served by 72 virgins if I die defending some dogmas"), can not be the basis of a rational discussion.

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

Recently, strong evidence has appeared suggesting that free will and consciousness may be illusions, actually.
In one such sttudy, volunteers were asked to press any of two buttons at random whenever they decided to. They also had to indicite to the researchers as soon as they made the decision to do so and their brains were being scanned with fMRI. The scans revealed identifyable patterns several seconds before the subjects indicated having reached a decision... The researchers were able to predict the decision and even which button the subject was going to press several seconds before the subject him/herself!

It strongly suggests that the 'decisions' you think you make are actually formed through some subconscious process that may very well be deterministic, and you are only made aware of it later on, and then perceive the illusion that you made that decision consciously.

This might seem like a sad thing bursting our ego, but unless someone is doing the experiment, we're perfectly fine with that illusion. It has the same consequences as free will.

Sedit - 5-1-2012 at 13:03

Sickman did you by any chance read a post of mine over at the Zones a few years back?

neptunium - 5-1-2012 at 14:01

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17

[rquote=231930&tid=18428&author=
You're wrong about the universe part, though. We now know the time spans of Solar system formation, chemical and biological evolution. It's not precise, but it doesn't matter.

.

i wasnt talking about the time spam of our present universe but how many universes preceeded this one .
our 13.7 billion years could be the last episode of a long line of failled universes from which we cannot collect data or execute measurement because they are outside this space and time .
not always easy to formulate an idea clear in my mind but confusing on the keyboard!

Sickman - 5-1-2012 at 14:09

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Sickman did you by any chance read a post of mine over at the Zones a few years back?

I do not believe so. "W i l l"

you post a link to it so that I can read it?

Anyway, does a human sperm cell and or a human ovum have free will?

If not, then is free will obtained at the moment of conception?

Futhermore, do individual cells in my body have free will? I'm thinking here of involuntary processes in the body that don't appear to be controlled by me diliberately: examples: heart beat, digestion, and most importantly, cellular respiration.

If the behaviour of atoms, and by extension any structure made entirely of atoms, is purely the consequence of happen stance, and if happen stance itself is not governed by any agents of free will then we truly are just a bunch of MINDLESS FREAKING ROBOTS. If that were true then life is utterly meaningless, and would be a "cause" to dispair. However, I believe I do have free will, and that it is not merely an illusion, and I take the responseability very seriously. However, I do not attribute free will to mere chemicals: I don't consider concentrated sulfuric acid to be willfully malicious, but that doesn't mean I don't try hard to avoid getting the stuff all over me!

Now consider this, suppose we have two chemical solutions that when added to each other are anticipated to react to form a completely new compound, never before synthesized. Now suppose that the atoms have free will:

How will the atoms choose to behave under circumstances that they have never encountered before? Total unpredictability? Possibly! I do love chemistry, it's what I "choose" to love. :cool:

Sedit - 5-1-2012 at 15:35

Nope can't do that sorry.

But I was just wondering because I posted the exact sort of thing debating the absence of freewill due to the fact that no matter what matter and energy obeys the laws of physics meaning as physical being all past present and future had to be determine at the start of the big bang no matter how complicated that future may be.

hkparker - 5-1-2012 at 16:00

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

I wonder how strong the correlation is here. If it was observed 100% of the time that would be pretty damning evidence but if one person was able to decide to choose against what his brain suggested that would throw the study out.

Sickman - 5-1-2012 at 16:44

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Nope can't do that sorry.

But I was just wondering because I posted the exact sort of thing debating the absence of freewill due to the fact that no matter what matter and energy obeys the laws of physics meaning as physical being all past present and future had to be determine at the start of the big bang no matter how complicated that future may be.

My world view does not include the big bang theory.

However, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that there was a big bang:

1) Did nothing explode because it wanted to or because it had to?

2) If nothing exploded because it had to then what could possibly have been the circumstances that would cause nothing to explode?

3) If nothing exploded because it wanted to then how did circumstances, that before prevented it, now, allow it?

4) If nothing exploded because it wanted to then free will did exist at one point, but now is everything just a product of the exercise of that free will.

5) If nothing exploded because it wanted to did it lose its free will when it became the cause of everything: an eternal slave of that one choice?

I think the big bang theory is not the best explanation for the origin of everything, or for that matter, the origin of anything.

Endimion17 - 5-1-2012 at 18:18

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

I understand, it happens to me sometimes, too.

Quote: Originally posted by Sickman

I do not believe so. "W i l l"

you post a link to it so that I can read it?

Anyway, does a human sperm cell and or a human ovum have free will?

If not, then is free will obtained at the moment of conception?

So a beaker of sulphuric acid and an oxygenated, heated to ~37 °C, and nourished lump of immensely complicated molecules/ions arranged as colloidal machines through which ionic impulses rush we call "the brain" is the same thing? Because that's what I read from your statement.

It can't be the same and it isn't the same on so many levels.

Not only you fail to understand biology, but your last paragraph shows that you fail to understand chemistry. Today, supercomputer clusters can show what happens in a reaction between huge proteins.
"Chemical solutions in a beaker" is something far from being impossible to deduce. Reactions between atoms, molecules and ions are extremely simple and can be easily predicted. Computers have been calculating such things for the past 30+ years and there's a whole branch of chemistry that deals with it.

Quote: Originally posted by Sickman

My world view does not include the big bang theory.

That's unfortunate, because it's not up to you what the collection of scientific data shows.

Quote:

However, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that there was a big bang:

1) Did nothing explode because it wanted to or because it had to?

2) If nothing exploded because it had to then what could possibly have been the circumstances that would cause nothing to explode?

3) If nothing exploded because it wanted to then how did circumstances, that before prevented it, now, allow it?

4) If nothing exploded because it wanted to then free will did exist at one point, but now is everything just a product of the exercise of that free will.

5) If nothing exploded because it wanted to did it lose its free will when it became the cause of everything: an eternal slave of that one choice?

I think the big bang theory is not the best explanation for the origin of everything, or for that matter, the origin of anything.

You fail at cosmology and astronomy, too. The big bang theory has nothing to do with anything "before" zero time. The domain of that theory is <0, plus infinity>, and I'm using angle brackets on purpose.

I always say that if one wants to express a valid opinion, one has to learn the basic facts first.
You repeat the elementary fallacies and errors I've seen numerous times.

[Edited on 6-1-2012 by Endimion17]

Sedit - 5-1-2012 at 18:34

Quote: Originally posted by Sickman

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

It seems to me that you are complicating an already complicated question.

It boils down to this. If there is free will then you by the power of your mind alone should be able to cause Water to separate into hydrogen and oxygen or the reverse of such prevent the two from reacting by shear will.

Can you place Chlorine and Zinc inside of a vessel and by will power make it not react at all?

I have concluded that will power does not exist, what you think was your will was just what your enviroment around you directed you to do. The jumbled, filtered mess of energy that is your thought process just distorts reality until you feel like you are making your own decisions.

Pulverulescent - 6-1-2012 at 02:47

Quote:

. . . you by the power of your mind alone should be able to cause Water to separate into hydrogen and oxygen or the reverse of such prevent the two from reacting by shear will.

Look Sedit, just because a thing hasn't yet been done doesn't nececelery mean that it cannot be done!
You believe it's impossible to do what you've described simply because that is the universally accepted view!
Yes, we should listen carefully to what is said by others but at the same time, nullius in verba!

P

Panache - 6-1-2012 at 03:22

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Quote:

. . .
You believe it's impossible to do what you've described simply because that is the universally accepted view!
Yes, we should listen carefully to what is said by others but at the same time, nullius in verba!

What are ya some sort of a commie pinko poofter, speak american you retarded spacca.

I was forced into this slur by the laws of the universe, itself an utterly meaning expression.

'johnny played guitar jenny played bass the name of the band was the human race, everbody tell me have you heard pop goes the world'

The probability approach to existence i find is the most profound and humbling, even for me, and i'm a fucking legend.
Chaos just means you've been up for too long or you have undiagnosed dementia or that you're a fucking legend.
Magic Happens

Endimion17 - 6-1-2012 at 03:56

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

I think you're on the verge (if not over the verge) of abusing Popper's principles.
Consider the relatively famous example of copper atoms. In order to say: "Copper atoms behave like that etc.", we should test every copper atom in the universe.

Think about it.

fledarmus - 6-1-2012 at 04:27

Free will does not imply absolute power - why should the presence if free will imply the ability to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen by using your mind? It is enough to imply the ability to decide whether or not to flip a switch to pass a current through water, thus separating it into hydrogen and oxygen.

And that fact that somebody would be able to read signals in our brains announcing that we had made a decision before we were able to communicate that decision ourself does not necessarily imply a lack of free will, especially on a decision with so little consequence. If the same methodology could show that a person would decide to report a co-worker for embezzling at some time before the person was even aware that his co-worker was embezzling, then that would imply a lack of free will. Reading signals in our brains before we communicate a choice only implies a temporal distance between making a decision and communicating that decision, not that the decision is predestined.

Pulverulescent - 6-1-2012 at 04:33

Quote: Originally posted by Panache

What are ya some sort of a commie pinko poofter, speak american you retarded spacca.

You all see that, girls --- Panache is casting veiled asparagus on my politics, gender identity and my mental (in)continence

and on top of that he wants me to speak some kind of pidgin English as well?

'Could be worse; he could've called me a 'godless, atheist heathen'

Pinko poofter me fucking arse?

When I get me gorgeous, delicate, jewelled hands on 'im he will be so 'all sore'! :cool:

Pulverulescent - 6-1-2012 at 04:44

Ohhh my goodness, didn't I forgot about scratching his eyes out!

Endimion17 - 6-1-2012 at 05:06

Is this the weird part of the SM fora? :O

Sedit - 6-1-2012 at 06:54

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Quote:

. . . you by the power of your mind alone should be able to cause Water to separate into hydrogen and oxygen or the reverse of such prevent the two from reacting by shear will.

I am all for altering my train of thought as evidence seems fit however all the evidence is pointing to a complete lack of free will. The only room I see for freewill is if we live in an infinite universe and everyone is on there own "frequency" so to speak jumping lightyears in the future with every millisecond that passes....

I chose the first option because as it stands current knowledge supports it much better.

Quote:

It is enough to imply the ability to decide whether or not to flip a switch to pass a current through water, thus separating it into hydrogen and oxygen.

What made you decide to pass the current though water? Sheesh I see it's going to get complicated attempting to explain this isn't is.

You eat chemicals, these chemicals are turned into other chemicals which affect your brain. Your brain turns these chemical signals into electrical energy. Our current understanding is that these electrical signals are what cause our mussels to move. These mussels move flicking a switch.

This is the most simplistic means I could possibly put this right now. Every atom in the universe reacts as it should according to physical law. Free will implies that we can alter this physical law to suit our wants. I do not see very much evidence to suggest this.

What I do see however is a very complex system of organic chemistry on a localized sphere that is so complex that the chemicals involved have have become so advanced and complicated that they only "believe" the forms of energy they can sense directly such as vibrations with the skin and ears (as well as the tongue picking up PH and other information), while the eyes and possibly a few glands in the brain detect electromagnetic radiation. All this information goes to the brain where a majority of it is filtered out and the person looses the true meaning behind there actions creating an almost fantasy like reality where they are the ones behind the wheel controlling everything around them when the reverse is really where the truth lay.

Can you alter what has already been done?

When you do something or "chose" not to do something are you sure that the outcome was not predetermined? If so, how are you sure... please explain your answer.

[Edited on 6-1-2012 by Sedit]

fledarmus - 6-1-2012 at 09:14

If there is no free will, then we are having this conversation because it was predetermined to occur, and there is therefore no point in continuing it. No amount of discussion about free will can change anybody's opinion, because we don't have opinions, only predetermined responses.

If we are having this discussion and it is at all possible to change anyone's opinion, then we have free will and there is no point in continuing the discussion - the act of debating free will proves that it exists. Cogito, ergo sum

Sedit - 6-1-2012 at 10:09

See that's not at all true, if you change your opinion then that is predetermined. The act of debating it is in no way proof it exist. All it proves is that there is a such thing as polar opposites.

Your environment, your upbringing, the words you have heard, the things you have seen... They have all lead you to believe you have freewill, the act of debating it is merely the chemical processes of my and your brain telling our fingers to hit these keys. It is very complex but in no way magical. I do not believe in magic only things that are a bit out of my comprehension zone.

Endimion17 - 6-1-2012 at 12:21

I think you all ignore the fact that it doesn't matter if we don't have free will, which is becoming more and more obvious as the years pass.
It truly doesn't matter.

Sedit - 6-1-2012 at 13:27

I'm not ignoring it, it does not matter to me at all other then on an intellectual level... I'm just here to enjoy the ride and to learn as much as I can before the ride stops.

Once the view of no free will is truly accepted in ones head the world starts to look like a totally different place where people in society function as a whole instead of a single entity with the sole purpose of keeping the genetic line going and nothing else. After all this is DNAs primary goal as a molecule even at its simplest of levels, self replication. Everything else in society from industrial revolutions to pushing one another to work and perform various task, even down to us having this conversation right here is a side effect of DNAs "will" continue replicating and nothing more.

Vogelzang - 6-1-2012 at 13:48

Quote:

Everything that occurs is the result of the atoms colliding, rebounding, and becoming entangled with one another, with no purpose or plan behind their motions. (Compare this with the modern study of particle physics.) His theory differs from the earlier atomism of Democritus because he admits that atoms do not always follow straight lines but their direction of motion may occasionally exhibit a 'swerve' (clinamen). This allowed him to avoid the determinism implicit in the earlier atomism and to affirm free will.[8] (Compare this with the modern theory of quantum physics, which postulates a non-deterministic random motion of fundamental particles.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Sedit - 6-1-2012 at 17:03

It seems to me that this fellow figured he found a loop hole with random motion of particles so he could comfort himself into believing there was freewill.

The motion has to be truly random for his theory to hold any water at all but odds are that its not random and is really just a result of complex uncalculable forces he is unaware of.

It would literally take an act of god to convince me that free will exist at this point because its something I have spent well over a decade thinking about. I was 15 when I first realized there was no freewill and I have tried and tried to comfort myself somehow like Epicurus did but logical thinking always brings me back to the conclusion that its just a figment of our imagination.

Panache - 12-1-2012 at 11:02

The minute you start using phrases like 'truly random' without defining them you're into that territory of philosophy steven hawking derided recently (and quite rightly), symantics.
Truly random cannot be defined, otherwise it could not be truly random.
Its like that bit in the matrix where the traitor is eating the steak, he doesn't care if its not real, likewise with free will, greyer though, if we are unable to confidently ascertain one way or the other, or even to postuate, without grand assumptions or better yet, corrections, it cannot matter nor affect you in any manner that you can be conscious of. However you will not stop thinking about it.