Free Will - What Is It and Does It Exist?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by InJoy

I wonder about this, Michael. While I can plainly see why a scientific discussion would need some definition groundwork in order to prove or disprove something (such as gravity), wouldn't it be different for a philosophical debate? If only for the fact that in the latter, nothing is likely to be proved?

Well, yes. And no.

The reason that it's different in philosophy is that you aren't trying to prove anything, at least not trying to disconfirm anything. Philosophy is speculation upon speculation: you don't derive Truth from it, you derive a basis by which you can determine truth.

But nevertheless, you still need definitions in philosophy. The difference is that you don't have to stick to one, as you do in science. The reason you need them is so that everyone is talking about the same thing. If I'm talking about gravity, the acceleration of two bodies towards one another; you're talking about gravity, the extent of the curvature in the space-time continuum; she's talking about gravity, the seriousness of a situation; he's talking about gravity, the theory of social connection in which people connect to dour people...

Then unless it's immediately clear from the context that we're talking about different things, it's going to get really ugly, really fast. It'd be about as productive as a French baker discussing politics with a Chinese metalworker mediated by an Australian aboriginal, and none speak the same language.

So the point of the definition, then, isn't to prove anything but to put down a set of agreements by which people can build. Take a look at an agnosticism versus atheism debate sometime to see what I mean. When there are no definitions, it's a pissing match. When the definitions are established, well... I'll just say it's more interesting.

I'll start a thread on definitions later tonight and post a link here. I'm not sure which folder it would go under. This forum isn't terribly well-suited for more pure philosophy.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'll start a thread on definitions later tonight and post a link here. I'm not sure which folder it would go under. This forum isn't terribly well-suited for more pure philosophy.

Done.

http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/s...efinition.html

[Liara Covert]

I think its possible to make free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or Higher Forces. How you can pin down or measure the level of external influence is another thing. This may be something you'll have the chance to reflect on when you reach "The Other Side." You may find it interesting to read "Life After Death: The Book of Answers" by Deepak Chopra (2006).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by InJoy

To be honest, much of type of debate that you have asked for in this thread is over my head. It's quite possible that it is necessarily so, but doesn't negate the fact that I'm not up for it.

A friend of mine once floated the idea that human souls are fractals (3.5 dimensions). I thought it was interesting, but I had no idea what to do with it. I don't think my regret at being mathematically inept is ever going to end.

One of the points of a chaotic or complex system is that it's inherently unpredictable. The very definition of a complex system is one that cannot be accurately predicted. However, all of my readings on chaos and complexity and catastrophe have been survey/introductory pieces; I still don't grasp the concepts well enough to make the appropriate connections. But if Crichton is right, and human beings are complex systems, then they're definitionally unpredictable with any reasonable accuracy; they're merely manageable.

Alternatively, there's the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle from quantum physics, which puts forward that the act of measuring something (which is necessary in order to predict it) can radically affect that something such that you simply can't pin it down well enough to predict it, even theoretically. From Wikipedia, "In classical physics, it was believed that if one knew the initial state of a system with infinite precision, one could predict the behavior of the system infinitely far into the future. According to quantum mechanics, however, there is a fundamental limit on the ability to make such predictions, because of the inability to define the initial data with unlimited precision."

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

How you can pin down or measure the level of external influence is another thing.

I think the level of external influence is 100%. Which, perhaps, would be synonymous with 0%.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I don't think my regret at being mathematically inept is ever going to end.

Oh, Michael, that is almost a criminal statement, especially coming from someone with such obvious intelligence. You have no business limiting yourself this way, let alone condemning yourself to a lifetime of regret. My good heavens. If I had a wet noodle handy, I'd thwap you with it.

Go find a good math teacher. Take a class at whatever math level you feel comfortable now, and move up at whatever pace necessary. You'll thank yourself.

[Michael Chui]

Heh, my ineptitude started with trignometry. I've limped my way through every advanced math class my community college had to offer (4 quarters of calculus, differential equations and linear algebra) and I'm dead certain that my passing grade was due more to my teacher's lenience than my ability.

I still don't understand trignometry, and I'm uncomfortable with geometry. So, I'd be going back to basic algebra. It's not that I haven't tried, you know. It's more that it's not important enough for me to go back and solidify my foundations; I have other priorities for the present.

[shivraj]

"Will is not free, but what is behind that will is free"