Free-will

[sofyst]

Whether it be a label given by Christians or non-Christians, Atheist or Agnostics, I think that the idea of 'free-will' is thrown around far too much, without further realizing or knowing what exactly is the nature of this horrid beast (I say horrid because I do not agree with it ).

Therefore, may I ask that we discuss what exactly free-will is? I would first like someone, anyone, to posit their definition of what free-will is. Then I think we should all discuss this definition to see if it is satisfactory. If not, we'll try another. Then we can, hopefully, come to a working definition of what free-will is. Then we can debate on whether or not it truly exists.

[Timeaisis]

When severely contemplating the matter of Free Will, it is quite easy to deduce that your very actions are first calculated by your brain, then, if reasonable, you proceed to carry them out. With this, it is easy to see that Free Well could be non-existent as our brain handles so many unknown processes that we are not, at any particular time, aware of.

Then, we come to a common word, that I have just now noticed, has alot to do with free will itself. logic. Upon further consideration, it could be noted that logic itself is the 'lack of free will', as logically, we carry out actions that are the most reasonable for us: vital for our survival, best for our interests, etc. But then you find interest, and then you must stop. With a difference, there must be some sort of deviation in the human psyche. If all human beings processed through logic, and all human beings are of the same species, would we not make all the same choices? Assuming that free will is something non-existent, and our brain automatically calculates the best possible action, then proceeds to carry it out, wouldn't we all, in every situation do the same thing. When we think of rash people, we think of a lack of logic, and a lack of common sense. So then, do these people have a different type of brain, one of which allows them to follow their "instinct" and not process the logistics of the situation. Oddly enough, instinct may be more of an argument for free will, now that I finally think about it.

But putting the last part of that paragraph aside, as most of it was assumption anyway, what actually does free will entail? Is there a separate part of our brain that processes logic and another that processes emotion? Yes, that is common knowledge.

I part with one question.

Assuming that there is no free will:
What then is creativity?

[søgende]

you have a free choice, if your choice isn't a result of your context or your inner natura.
free choice is a possibility if God is Unable to know what you will do tomorrow and only knows the options open to you.
that condition takes care of the obvious paradoxes.
if a free choice is a possibility then we have free will

[PrismPaul]

When severely contemplating the matter of Free Will, it is quite easy to deduce that your very actions are first calculated by your brain, then, if reasonable, you proceed to carry them out.

You need to remove the "if reasonable" part of this if you want to really understand determinism (lack of free will). Your brain processes inputs and generates outputs (actions). Period. There is no "if" that you apply to the results of your brain's output. All of the "if" work was part of the brain's processing in the first place.

If all human beings processed through logic, and all human beings are of the same species, would we not make all the same choices?

No. Think of the brain as a computer that processes thousands and thousands of variables in every decision it makes. Different decisions by different people are easily accounted for by the fact that these variables have different values for different people.

For example, when hearing the same dog bark, some people might have a fear response, while others will not have that response. This will in turn impact behavior. The difference between the responses might be due to differing past experiences with dogs, other things that were going on in the mind at the time, etc. These and countless other “variables” will lead to different outcomes.

Additionally, because our minds are organic, not everyone’s “computer” is wired the same as everyone else’s anyway. So even with the same inputs and same variables, individuals may act differently.

All this processing is far too complex for us to understand, but that doesn't mean that any of it is under our "control".

Assuming that there is no free will:
What then is creativity?

What we perceive as creativity is simply "unexpected" outputs from our computer-like brain. As a past computer programmer, I know that even simple computers would give unexpected results from time to time, due to logic or coding errors. When something does what we don't anticipate, it appears to us as creative.

In short, creativity is an illusion very much like free will is an illusion.

(BTW: I'm writing this as if I myself am convinced - but really, I'm playing devil's advocate. As I described in my earlier post, I think determinism is more likely to be true than free will is, but I don't think we can prove either one.)

[søgende]

PrismPaul your argument is only an argument in the context of free will.
if determinism is true then their can be no investigation of determinism, becurse the investigation consist of n steps ending with a conclusion.
in the context of free will, that conclusion is the best possible given our resources.
in the context of determinism the n steps is a programed sequence where the conclusion is the step n + 1. In this context we have no guaranty that step n +1 is the result of reflections on determinism. it could be that the conclusion just reflect the necessity of what must happen. Actually any of the n steps in the investigation could reflect the necessity of what must happen and not reflections on determinism.

that means that in in a deterministic environment we cant trust your argument.
and in a non deterministic environment it is wrong