BAM! Text Wall!

The topic of free will was mentioned in another thread. I figured it would be interesting to have a discussion about it... so here's my theory. Yes, I got a little carried away. Don't feel like you have to read it, but it should be interesting on a rainy day.

With the recent surge of research into human behaviour, it is becoming clearer that a large part of who we are is decided by our environment. As such, the notion of free will has once again come under attack; it is difficult to understand where our metaphysical being comes into play in this physical universe. Also, if we do not, in fact, have a free will, is it illogical to hold people responsible for their actions? Both problems raise interesting questions about our existence, and I will propose my own answers to them shortly. First, however, we must be able to understand why we live in a determinist world, and identify the intricacies behind the illusion of free will. With free will out of the way, we will confront the dilemma of moral responsibility. Though this may seem complicated at first, the basic idea is no more complex than a game of rock, paper, scissors.
And it is a simple enough game. You have three modes of attack to choose from, each with its own raw strength and crippling weakness. You bounce your hand down, deep in thought. Your opponent has a history of throwing scissors. Your hand bounces again. Of course, he knows that you know, so he’s likely to throw paper, as a counter-measure. One more bounce. At this point, it is a certainty that your opponent will throw paper. If you want to win, you throw scissors. Your hand comes down, one final time. Scissors cuts paper, and you win.
This game is an example of determinism. It is a concept so entwined with the universe, it is difficult to firmly pin it down and analyze it. Suffice to say, the universe we live in is ruled by causality. That is, all future events are merely products of a formula produced by past and present events, and how they are affected by the laws of our reality. The most accurate depiction of this idea lies within the Laplace’s hypothetical demon. Pierre-Simon Laplace invented this demon in 1814, with the thesis that if such an entity were to know and understand all events of the past and present, along with all the laws of nature, this entity would theoretically be able to accurately predict the future.
The idea of telling the future is not as ludicrous as it may seem. Consider, for instance, the sunrise. In another reality or another world, we may have been mocked for predicting that the next morning, a gigantic, far-off ball of fire would appear to rise on the horizon and make its way across our sky. Yet, the laws of the universe, combined with the events of the past and present, allow us to accurately predict that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow morning. In truth, all weather works this way. Even we, beings of far less intellect than Laplace’s demon, are able to predict what will fall from the sky and when, how cold it will be at the time, and how fast the wind will be blowing, all with considerable accuracy.
Of course, these predictions are simple novelties with little practical use if they can only be applied to the physical world around us. Thankfully, however, this is not the case. Our minds and our thoughts, much like our bodies and actions, are governed under the same principle. As an example, consider our fictional game of rock, paper, scissors. Prior to actually throwing paper, our opponent first had to make the conscious decision of what he was going to play. Rather than completely randomly selecting one of the three, the choice of paper was a formula, a calculation using past and present events, and the laws of nature. Past and present events included the understanding of the rules of the game, the knowledge that you knew he always threw scissors, his desire to win, and the knowledge that you desired to win as well. All these things add up to form only one logical conclusion; play paper.
In truth, this idea is present in every choice we make. For instance, the simple question of soup or salad. Which would you like with your meal? The true question of course, is which is better suited, for you, to accompany the main course? Chances are, this will be the one that is selected. However, if you believe soup would better accompany it, but you had had a particularly bad experience with soup at this restaurant, or had decided that your life needed more variety, you would most likely opt to go with salad. Someone who knew everything about you, yet could not affect you, would logically be able to accurately predict which you would select, every time, if given enough time to make the proper calculations. This logic necessarily implies that humans are incapable of simply making a random choice. Our species has survived because our exceptional cerebral cortex finds way to place anything and everything into preexisting patterns. We have prejudices and biases that will always come into play, consciously or not, and, as with optical illusions, we are literally unable to ignore the patterns our brain sets out for us.
So where does this leave free will? If actions are determined before they are performed, does this leave room for freedom of choice for humans? According to Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, the two do not necessarily cancel each other out. This view is called compatibilism, and it defends the notion that free will can exist in a deterministic universe. According to Hume, free will should not be seen as an absolute ability to select from a number of options freely under the same conditions. It is instead the hypothetical ability to have selected other options, had the state of the world and your mind been different. This is to say that Hume views free will not as the ability to have freely selected soup or salad, regardless of various influences. Rather, it is that if you had wanted salad instead, you would have been able to select it, even though in truth, you would prefer soup, and therefore that is what will actually be chosen.
To Hobbes, free will is not an inherent ability that allows us to select from various options, regardless of past and present events. If this were true, he argues, the selection would ultimately be completely random, and would not even be a will at all. He argues that free will simply means we are not specifically forced to make a certain choice, but can freely select from what we wish, taking into consideration all past and present causes. Therefore, although you will still select soup, you maintain your free will via the fact that you are not forced to make that particular selection.
And here is where I must point out the critical flaws in these philosophies. What Hume and Hobbes describe is a strongly misguided description of free will. The problem is that the two are limiting their perception on a key idea— the idea of someone being "forced." Hobbes, specifically, makes his argument that, because no person is holding you at gunpoint, screaming that they will kill you if you do not select soup, you are not being forced. However, I argue, if our decision is being pressed upon us by something, are we not being forced? Does it matter whether we are being pressed by a person, or the culmination of past and present events? The compatibilist definition of free will, then, becomes erroneous. Free will should not be seen as the ability to select freely, had other circumstances been different. Nobody would say that women had completely open career opportunities, if only they had been born a man. To have freedom to select your own career, you must be able to select whichever you please, regardless of the circumstances. The same should hold true for will. Free will should be seen as the ability to select freely, regardless of circumstances. This is known colloquially as “absolute†free will. This raises some issues, as the term “free†seems to imply an absolute idea in itself. We will therefore come to the idea that, because it is not absolutely free, it is merely a “will.â€
Essentially, to truly say that we have a free will, we must be able to say that we are responsible for our actions. And to say that we are responsible for our actions means we must be the first cause of those actions, where first cause means that there was nothing to cause our initial thought process. We must, essentially, be the ultimate cause of our actions. However, in this determinist universe, all our choices are made by forces and events outside of our control. It follows that we cannot possibly be the ultimate cause of our actions, and therefore cannot have a free will.
In fact, the entire notion of free will in a determinist universe is a logical inconsistency. Take, for example, Carl Ginet’s “Consequence Argumentâ€. It is a simple statement to say that if we do not have control over an event, we cannot possibly have control over its’ consequences. If we cannot prevent an egg from falling straight to the floor, we cannot prevent it from cracking or breaking. If we cannot prevent a winning touchdown pass in the final seconds of the game, we certainly cannot prevent that team from winning the game. It is also safe to assume that we do not have any control over the events of the past, or over the laws of nature. I can no more change the fact that I was born than I can change the directional pull of gravity. With these two axioms, we can make a simple transition. Because we live in a determinist universe, the events of the present, I.E. our actions, are the necessary consequences of the events of the past. If we have no control over the events of the past, we cannot have any control over their consequences, and therefore cannot have control over our own actions.


Yet, the compatibilists were correct about one thing— we will always do what we want. In less colloquial terms, the choice selected will always correspond with what we will. When presented with a choice, we will always, without fail, do what we will. Some could say that in certain cases, our will would be denied, proving the existence of free will. For example, referring back to previous example of someone having a gun to your head, forcing you to select salad over soup. You may want soup, you may hate salad, but your will is being denied by this person with a gun. One could argue that this would prove the existence of a free will, as you are being denied your will as per this situation. However, it is important to keep in mind that this person with a gun is merely another past or present event. You may want soup over salad, but that is not the choice anymore. The choice being presented is whether you want soup and death, or salad and life. The obvious selection is salad and life, and therefore it becomes what you want. This version of will shall henceforth be referred to as physical will— it is your ultimate answer in a physical decision, where physical refers to both the physical world around us and our conscious thought processes. The compatibilists were correct in that we would always do whatever we wanted most— however, what we want most will never be more than one thing, and will be decided long before the physical choice is even presented to us.
However, without free will, how is it determined what we actually want? Clearly, there must be some medium to make this decision; there must be something between an unconscious preference for soup over salad, and the actual selection of soup. At the very least, there must necessarily be a calculator, to input all relevant information, such as preference, distaste for liquids, love of the colour green, etc, and output what our physical will is. This medium is our character— it is who we are in the physical sense of the word. It is who we have built ourselves to be, and thus, all relevant past and present events are necessarily stored within it. Our character weighs all these events against one another, in order to build a perception of the world around it. Whether soup is perceived in a more positive light than salad or not merely depends on past and present events. These events will build a particular character, who at the moment of being presented with a decision, will select whichever option is most appealing. Many people’s character will emit a different physical will, some opting for soup, and others for salad. The question, then, is how our characters are formed. Where does this complex, calculating mechanism come from?
In the mid-20th century, a form of psychology called behaviourism quickly picked up steam in the Western world. In the world of psychology, few debates are as prominent as the one regarding Nature vs. Nurture. Nature, in this sense, would be genetics and neurology, aspects we acquired through evolution, and nurture would be our life. One of the main ideas the behaviourists supported was the idea that human beings had no nature at all; we were born tabula rasa. That is to say, when we were born, our minds were blank. This would mean that all of our behaviours and intricacies were Nurture— merely picked up along the way, given to us by the society that we live in. Everything, from gender to fear of dairy, is merely a social perception implemented into us by our surroundings. Of course, with stellar advancements in Behavioural Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology, we now know that we are most certainly not born blank. Our genes play a very important part in who we are, both physically and mentally. However, the Behaviourists were still very much correct in that a large part of who we are is implemented by the Nurture aspect. In fact, with the human race as advanced as it is, even the parts of us that are determined by Nature, are essentially determined by Nurture anyhow.
To explain, we will first work under the proposition that we are built as people by approximately 50% nature and 50% nurture. Of course, these are purely hypothetical figures, and are merely being used for illustrative purposes. In truth, any figures, one set of which would inevitably be the correct ones, could be used. What we must keep in mind is that both our nature and our nurture are, in their own ways, determined by environment. Our nurture is determined in a fairly obvious way by our environment— it affects us, and we vary accordingly. Our nature, however is slightly more complicated. What is important to remember is that our nature, as is the nature of all living creatures, is a product of Natural Selection. Over many, many generations, Natural Selection chooses which genes are best suited for the environment that they are living in. These genes then produce an organism. Therefore, our genes, our nature, is determined not by our surroundings, but by the surroundings of our ancestors. However, if these are the two things which build us, and they are in turn decided by how the environment affects us, then we can say that we are ultimately merely products of the complete environment. Clearly, the environments of two people are never exactly the same, regardless of how similarly raised they are. However, our environments are similar enough that the sheer amount of variety amongst people seems problematic. We see this problem once we examine any two unrelated people. Physically, they are essentially the same. One may curve slightly less, colours may fade or switch, but essentially, we are the same. Mentally, however, no two strangers would agree on anywhere near everything. Physically, we would all react essentially the same to pain— jerk away, tear up, etc. Mentally, however, we would all react very differently to a new social situation, or given the option of soup or salad. If our characters are merely products of our environment, why are our characters so hugely varied?
The difference, of course, lies in how our surroundings affect us. It is not a novel idea that the same occurrence will affect two different people in two different ways. This is our Innate Will. Our innate will is the part of us that allows us to decide how our surroundings will affect us. One person may taste the concept of defeat for the first time, and be crushed by it, whereas another would be revitalized in their future performances. We decide whether we will associate the colour blue with that spider in our bed, or whether we will maintain the difference between the two. Our innate will decides how our nurture will change us, but it is ultimately limited by the restraints of our character. As we age and our character develops, more limitations are placed, necessarily limiting the rate at which we can or are willing to learn. This is why, as children, we absorb information much faster and are prone to change much more frequently than as an adult. The Innate Will has had many incarnations over the course of human society. It had been called a Soul, a Spirit, Inner Strength, Anima, Psyche, or even an individual’s imagination or human consciousness.
So essentially, we have very little say in our day-to-day decisions. We are simply along for the ride as our character uses our desires and influences to assert one choice as our Physical Will, which is then necessarily acted on. Our character, in turn, is shaped by our society, our peers, etc. Most importantly, however, our Innate Will decides how all these aspects of our environment will actually shape our character. In this sense, we are very much like our own Frankenstein— we are able to accurately create a monster, we are simply unable to properly control it.


Bonus 1500 minerals for a great post

 

BAM! Another Text Wall!

Second part. For those of you who actually read all of this, I salute you.

Unfortunately, this idea is seen to cause more trouble than it solves. One of the biggest areas of criticism encountered by concepts such as these is the concept of moral responsibility. If our actions are a result of our character, and our character is in turn the result of our surroundings, how can anyone be held responsible for his or her actions? One could argue that all criminals and all injustice are actually creations of society, and to no fault of the person himself. And in 1924, American lawyer Clarence Darrow famously used just such a defense in one of the first U.S. cases to be dubbed "Trial of the Century"— the Leopold and Loeb Case.
Nathan Freudenthal Leopold Jr. and Richard A. Loeb were two young adults, aged 19 and 18 respectively, who belonged to wealthy families and attended the University of Chicago. We have since learned that, as a result of the teachings of the two boys, they believed themselves to be Übermensch— Nietzschean supermen, a sort of Homo Superior. As such, they wanted to commit the perfect crime, which many believe is impossible. Unfortunately, the two had also been raised in the wake and consequences of World War One, quite possibly the most brutal and violent war in history. During the war, and thus, their childhood, a considerable emphasis was removed from the sanctity of human life. Massive death tolls were cause for celebration— assuming the deaths were not from the home team. As a result, the two were raised without a large regard for human life, and thus had few qualms with actually attempting the perfect crime— the kidnapping and murder of Bobby Franks. In defense of the boys, Clarence Darrow declared to the court:


"What has this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay."

The implication here is obvious, and logically sound. How can we possibly hold these boys responsible for a crime that they were practically raised for? They were merely products of their environment, simply one event caused by a series of past and present ones. One would hardly hold a rock responsible for shattering a window, so how could one hold these two responsible for shattering a life? We find this problem in many historical events, as well.
On Tuesday, April 20th, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and one teacher, wounded 24 others, and eventually committed suicide in the Columbine High School Massacre, considered one of the United States’ deadliest school shooting. What seemed to receive the most media attention, however, were the potential reasons for the shooting. As early as 1996, warnings signs began surfacing. By late 1996, Harris had a private website documenting the fabrication of small explosives and his anger towards society. By late 1997, the site contained violent death threats directed at students and various teachers at the high school. Closer to the date of the shooting, Harris had documented the various guns he owned, the completion of pipe bombs— even a hit list of people he wished to target. Harris was also taking the prescription drug Luvox; which analysts claim has severe side effects, including aggression, depersonalization, and mania.
It is clear that we have here an even more complicated idea. Not only were the actions of the two boys caused by past and present events that had molded a character capable of these horrors, but the actions themselves were very predictable. A thorough study of U.S. School Shootings by the Secret Service stated: "...killers do not ‘snap.’ They plan. They acquire weapons. They tell others what they are planning. These children take a long, planned, public route towards violence." This statement is correct— the path that the two chose was made very public. Therefore, the Clarence Darrow defense could be replicated for these boys. They were clearly mechanisms responding to previous effects— it was their environment that had shaped their character. However, there is the added issue that the shooting was so predictable. If a boulder were placed on the edge of the cliff, would we blame it for falling off and crashing the stillness of the waters? This is not to say that something could not stop this crash— the boulder falling is not inevitable. In fact, were the boulder to fall, we would rather blame those things that did not prevent it from falling than the boulder itself.
Nowadays, this defense is used more and more in the court of law. Teenagers will plead that poor upbringing was the true cause for their actions. Men will blame severe work-related stress for assaulting their wives. And more often than not, and given a competent judge, these people are convicted anyway. Why? Why are these people being punished for what they were programmed by their environment to do? Jean-Paul Sartre best described this issue by stating: "... we are always ready to take refuge in a belief in determinism if this freedom weighs upon us or if we need an excuse.â€
The true reasoning here can be found in a much lesser-known story in Virginia. Milton Justice, while in his car, was approached by Luther Vane Byrd, who was brandishing a knife. Feeling rightly that his life was in danger, Justice fired a .38 special into Byrd’s skull, killing him. Justice was not convicted, thus answering our question. Contrary to common belief, the justice system does not punish actions. Rather, the justice system punishes based on how these actions reflect our character, by analyzing the circumstances behind the event.

In fact, our society functions under this axiom. Consider a child, taking a cookie. If one of the past events leading up to this decision was that his mother said that it was alright, he would be showing good character. It would be impossible to fault his character for a bad selection— the child made a very acceptable one. However, past events were different, and permission had in fact been denied, the child would be displaying poor character, and would thus elicit appropriate punishment. The actions are identical, it is how these actions reflect the individual’s character that is truly considered. As Ridley stated, our strongest instinct is to want our genes to be passed on— and the most effective way of doing this is to raise a child with good character. We dole out punishment; we impose these events on him, to try to shape his or her character into a better one. In Western Society, kissing someone is only acceptable under the circumstances that past events have lead to a close bond with this person. One would be demonstrating poor character to kiss a stranger, and would likewise be suitably reprimanded (read: slapped.)
Recall, then, that it is ultimately us, our Innate Will, which shapes our character. Also, as proven by Ridley, we are necessarily a social animal: “Cooperative groups thrive, and selfish ones do not, so cooperative societies have survived at the expense of others.â€
Therefore, if the group decides that we are making poor decisions in shaping our character, we will be suitably punished. The group will make these decisions based on the actions your character exhibits; it could hardly analyze your character directly. Therefore, though our actions inevitably become automatic to our physical body, it is still we who are ultimately responsible for keeping them proper within the context prescribed by our respective society. As Sartre argues, living in a determinist universe does not automatically bar the existence of moral responsibility. We are responsible for our character, and our character shows itself through our actions. Moral responsibilty falls on us to create a character that will show itself in an acceptable way.
In truth, living in a determinist universe is actually a prerequisite to moral responsibility. If humans had a will which was truly free, it would be illogical to hold us responsible for our actions. That is to say, if all of our decisions were truly free, and thus unaffected by past and present events, they would essentially be random. No rhyme or reason could be attributed to any decision, as reason itself is based necessarily on the analysis of past events. It seems that it would be arbitrary to punish or reward an individual for performing an action generated at random. No, punishment and reward must be aimed primarily at the character of an individual, the causes for the action, rather than the action itself. If you're still reading this, good job.

Truthfully, free will is but a romantic ideal, an impossibility. It is a security blanket for human society; something we imagine ourselves to have in order to reassure ourselves that we are superior to other animals, plants, or sand. Personally, however, I find the notion of a determinist universe far more comforting— we are not simply the product of an over-powered deity. We are the product of a complex puzzle, an unsolvable algorithm, taking place over millions and millions of years. We are a branch, curving and bending along with the universal tree. We are one of the many representations of life and existence. The religious standard is gone— we are no longer the owners of the planet, the image of God, destined to rule all the universe. We are now part of the greater family of existence, flowing and breaking alongside all else in a more complex pattern than our oh-so-simple minds could ever imagine.

 

I believe this post is way too deep for me, but I did walk away with something (other than a headache).

By the way, is this a paper? This is your own writing? Brilliant, if so.

I'm confused as to how you mean that an individual shouldn't be held accountable for an action simply because the environment made it easier to choose the path that would lead inexorably to their action...
I think everyone could see that despite your hate, your anger, and ill feelings that you developed based on the actions of others, or the lack of actions, that you still have a choice.

There is still that balancing moment of choice. You can be presented with a situation through years and years and years of preparation and yet at some point that voice in your head should say "wait, this is wrong."

The best example I can see of this is the soldier who is programmed to follow orders, follow orders, follow orders. And yet when the order came to massacre thousands of people, he refused. This was documented many times in the German Armies, although it was rather rare considering the amount of brainwashing that occurred. Often, these dissenting soldiers were shot outright.

Finally, I would wonder what you would say to my proposal that while our actions may be determined by algorithms or predestined notions, we must still function as the catalyst for these situations to be formed. If we were to sit back and do nothing knowing these "mind-blowing" theories, none of these actions would occur. It is still the individual will and insatiable hunger that drives us forward toward these events.

While you could certainly argue that some individuals are more... predetermined to have certain traits, like willpower, isn't it a personal decision and an elemental one whether you continue or not? I don't feel that things like this necessarily have an outside influence....

But great post. I can't believe you wrote this.

 

just read it all, it makes a lot sense.

btw is this your one of your essays or something ;D

 

How can you read this and only have that to say? It's mind-blowingly supported and written.

 

Excuse me while my brain cools.
















So what you are saying is that Free will does not exist and everything was decided beforehand but we can affect our character.

That means that we cannot make choices now but we can choose what will happen later by slight character changes that come through learning?

 

First i would like to say your title was appropiate at the very least. That really is one hell of a paper and i really i dont know what i could say to slam that in more.

As for the actual meat of it i am more than happy to admit i have probally only digested a piece of it. But i do believe there is such a thing as true random chance evne if it is very rare to come across. And thus things could have played out a different way. This in my opinion still allows for a grea equation but it makes so it oculd never be understood but just is.

Im not sure where that places me relative to your monster of a post but that is my 2 cents. And maybe when i get a better understanding of the post i can post a better opinion of it.

 

maybe because it didn't "mind-blow" me? i thought it was well written and to me it made a lot of sense, there was nothing in there that i struggled to come in terms with.

 

-BnechbReaker-
I wrote this last year for a seminar. It's more of a thesis than a straight up essay. On a side note, I'm somewhat disappointed. I was trying my hardest to make your brain go POW.

-BirdofPrey-
In a nutshell, yes. I like to take the wording away from choice, though. We rarely ever make a specific choice, because by the time we're presented with the choice, it's too late to alter our character sufficiently to really affect it, given that it's mainly an unconscious process. We just make it predisposed towards certain things, so that SHOULD a choice come up, we're prepared for it. It's not so much that we're trying to make the right decision, it's more that we're trying to me any right decision.

-Jon-
To all your questions, I answer: Nurture. Environment.

Yes, the soldiers said no, even though they were brain-washed. But where some people would say (erroneously ;D) that this was a matter of choice, I say it's a matter of character. They were unable to kill those people because there was an equivalent or stronger force opposing the brainwashing. Where this propoganda would have been pushing them to kill, something else, be it instinctual sympathy for a fellow human (Nature), a caring, love-filled life (Nurture), or a mixture of both, was pushing against it.

Think about it. He didn't really make a choice, did he? If his officers had asked him the day before, or the day after, he would have answered the same thing. He didn't have a choice in the matter, he always would have refused. Because that's his character.

His decision was made long before the choice was even presented to him.

--LordKerwyn-
Actually, it's funny that you mention that. My theory is that this random "thing" that you're talking about has something to do with Quantum Mechanics, which involves tiny molecules which randomly phase in and out of existence.
I've wanted to add on a bit about Quantum Mechanics for a while and try to figure out how something that's so obviously random could fit into a universe ruled by causality, but... suffice to say, I know jack-squat about Quantum Mechanics, and I've no intention of finding out soon.

 

Bizarro in response to your response to me I was also was thinking something similar but i was thinking of the fact it impossible to discover both velocity and position of electrons. I nowhere near positive but i think that is governed but quantum mechanics but like you i dont know anywhere near enough to bring those things up in a disscussion.

 

I enjoyed reading this as it was simply mind-blowing. I also fully agree with this thesis/essay as it is supported so well I can't possibly disagree. Congrats. On a side note. I feel another part into this equation of life as it would appear is the random creation of mutations within the theory. Basicly an unexpected change within the theory would create infinite amounts of reactions within the theory, although that could also be considered as a universal part of the theory. I love deep stuff like this! owerup:

 

< read the first half - I am at work, so I'll read the second half later and respond

by the way, I believe very strongly in will, so woo hoo for debate time =P

 

Awesome! *grabs popcorn* The clash of the logical titans!

 

ok - read the second half... I can't decide whether to just respond now, or to form my own thesis paper-esque response... lol

ey... I'll jump in:

Free Will vs. Determinism:

While the concepts are well laid out and put together, a single basic flaw underscores the entire thought process. To you, and those who feel like you, the universe exists upon a foundation of laws. Equations can be designed to describe these intrinsic rules of reality, and those equations can be used to not only know the condition of the present, but to discover the details of the past and future. If it is not already clear, allow me to vocalize the conflict in universe-views more clearly. It is most simply, letters versus numbers.

Both are used as methods for communicating. Numbers however are built on the idea that there are TRUTHS out there, and when we discover them, we can describe them. Numbers when put together form formulae and equations - they DESCRIBE reality. Letters on the other hand are combined into words and sentences. Letters are used to CREATE reality. Allow me to illustrate:

When I say: "tree", what do you think of? A picture forms in your mind from that word. Do you for a second believe that every other person reading this sees the same picture in their mind that you do? Hardly. Each individual has an image he or she associates with that word. Words are not exact. Words tell stories, and stories are by their very nature inventions. This ties into the old philosophical question... is my red the same as your red? Imagine for an instant that your view of reality is absolutely correct. You call a certain color red, and another color blue. How do you really know that I see the same colors as you do? Maybe when I look at an apple, I see the color blue, but I have been told all my life that apples are red, and so I associate the word "red" with apples, just like you do - but perhaps I see a completely different color than you. Some people do you know - we call them colorblind. This illustrates how words are used to make pictures, but they are only faintly tied to anything "real".

Numbers on the other hand, give us a much greater feeling of comfort. People do not like uncertainty. When I say 2+2=4, you do not doubt for a second that this is true. You believe in gravity. You believe in science. You believe that with enough time, we could concieveably describe the entire universe mathematically. But this vision is fatally flawed. The laws of physics are NOT absolute. You CAN reinvent the laws of gravity if you wish - it's been done before! For those just scanning this, let me repeat:

YOU CAN REINVENT THE LAWS OF GRAVITY. IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE!

One of the most famous examples is the infamous declaration that heavier than air machines couldn't fly. That was a law of reality. Then somebody went and did it. Suddenly, the laws of reality had to be rewritten, lol. Now numbers fans will follow this point by saying, "But, heavier than air machines could always fly, people just didn't know it yet. The universe didn't change, we just got a better understanding of it."

To you I ask, how was a heavier than air machine supposed to fly before people knew it could? The idea presents a rather droll picture of a remote asian steppe where the heavier than air machines used to hang out and fly free as birds, until the Crocodile Hunter caught them in the act. The laws of physics weren't wrong. It WAS impossible for heavier than air machines to fly, because they didn't exist. Then reality changed, and it no longer was. If you say that in 832 A.D. it was possible for heavier than air machines to fly, then you are saying that present truths can be based on potential futures. This is even worse for the mathematical point of view because it makes literally everything true, because anything is possible.

That is the nature of science. Theories are constantly being rewritten. Numbers are no more exact than letters, they merely give the appearance of being so. There are countless examples of scientific advancements being made, simply because somebody didn't know that what he was doing was "impossible", or didn't care.

This may have seemed a random tangent, but let me drive the point home. If there are no unbreakable 'laws of reality', then it is impossible to predict the future or form perfect equations. Therefore it is impossible for persons to be merely integers in a formula.

The reason it is so hard to fully accept this concept, is that it makes it hard to live. In order to survive, especially in a community, we have to subscribe to common truths. So from the moment you are born on, you are being brainwashed into accepting the communities version of reality. To illustrate: intellectually I know that I can punch thru a brick wall if I truly will it. But my upbringing means that instinctively when I go to punch a brick wall my brain screams, "oh crap! this is gonna hurt!" And so I am defeated before I even begin. However, some people CAN punch thru brick walls. How do they do this? Normally, we explain this by saying that they have been 'trained'.

But the reality is that the first time that guy went to punch a wall, his brain screamed at him that it would hurt, and so it did. But he kept doing it, and eventually his brain got bored with the same subject and started thinking about other things. While his brain was distracted, it didn't hurt. The more he practices, the quicker his brain gets bored with the topic and the more it is distracted and the less he hurts. His subconscious reasoning is tallying that he's hurting less and less. Now the simplest explanation would be that he used to expect it to hurt, and so it did; now he doesn't expect pain, and so there is none. But that goes counter to our whole basis for relating to existence. So his brain instead helps him cope by perhaps thinking that he is 'perfecting his technique'... as long as he uses 'proper technique' he will not feel pain. But when he throws a punch with 'poor technique', halfway thru his brain screams at him that he did it wrong and he expects pain and gets it.

Now I know at this point you're having a hard time swallowing that, so let me make one more point. It's quite simple. Placebos. This is VERY well documented. With pretty much any disease or condition, one way to fix it is to do extensive research, find something you think will help it, test it thoroughly, etc, etc... you put it in a pill, people take the pill and some of them get better. However, and this is extremely cool and should make the point about will very blatant, you can also give people a sugar pill - with no medical benefit - but TELL them that it is some new drug and it will help them, and the same percentage will still get better. Let me repeat that point too:

SUGAR-PILLS WORK JUST AS GOOD AS ACTUAL MEDICINES!

Now is this because sugar is a cure-all? Hardly. The truth simply is that if people really believe that they will get better... then they will get better. Our wills can trump reality every time. Reality is a product of our will. Now you may argue that for instance you really wanted to win a competition or something, but you lost anyway. The simple truth once again is that it's not that the other guy was better than you, it's just that he wanted to win more. Any goal you fail to accomplish, it is purely because you did not wish to accomplish it enough.

This is another reason people don't like the pure idea of will too much. Because we all have many things we regret, and we don't want to have to shoulder the responsibility ourselves. We'd rather pass the buck. But if and when you truly understand the power your mind gives you... you can do anything you can imagine.

 

Nate, I don´t agree with you.
Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? After your reasoning the answer would be no. Did you know that there are insects that can fly even though the current theorys of aerodynamics stat that they can´t?


The question If there is a free will is easy to answer, the question what free will itself is unfortunately not.
What is free will? Since we can´t get a absolute answer (a 'true' free will would actually be randomness) we have to take Bizzaro_Paragorns, a practicable one.
We are actually interested if we are responsible (especially in the legal sense) for our actions. That is not the original question but it is a question we can answer or at least work with.
Imagine that scientists someday come up with the answer and it would be: "no". In that case we would have to shut down all jails and replace them with "reprogramming" centres where we change their character into a sociable acceptable one (being a criminal is not acceptable).
Thus the idea of the "innate" will comes in. Is that "innate will" real or is it a excuse to avoid having to build reprogramming centres?

 

erm actually there is no sound if a tree falls and no on eis there to hear it: sound is provided with your ears by converting soundwaves to sounds

 

whoa, my eyes just blurred out! my vision is fading! no..... NOOOOOOO!!!!!! im going blind! curese you text wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes but the concept behind is is: If something is not percieved, does it exist? Is something only real if we look at it? Does the world vanish when we close our eyes?
You could say yes, in that case you would be the only "real" thing, everything else is only there because you see it, or just want to see it. Even other people only exist because you want them to.
Do you know that "peek-a-boo" game? Small children that can´t yet think "outside of themselves" (maybe wrong expression?) think that once they can´t see a person that person also can´t see them too.

The concept is the "ultimate" will if you want since everything in that universe is dependant on your observation. If you hear the tree but too you it sounds like a car crash it IS a car crash in the moment you hear it. The novel/anime "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" touches on that idea by giving the name giving character that ultimate will.

Edit: The movie triology "The Matrix" toys with the inverse idea: Just because you percieve something doesn´t mean it exists. At one point a character jokingly comments that maybe all they taste in the matrix are nuances of chicken because that is the only taste the machines knew (i think). The people in it think bread tastes like bread while it actually tastes like chicken.

 

i believe everything is down to the brain, the human brain is so powerful if everyone could fully utilize it then i don't know what the world would look like now.

imagine if there's one person in the world who is the absolute best at everything, now imagine that everyone was like that... it's would simply be crazy to us but not to people in this virtual reality. this idea might seem far-fetched but theoretical our brain is capable of this, we just need to combine all the special traits that has developed in some people's brains that them best in the world at one particular thing.

 

But would that "Übermensch" have a free will? Being great at everything might even remove free will since you would always make the "right" decision - if you make the wrong decision as expression of your will you wouldn´t even be human anymore.

I´m shure you din´t mean it but your example is extremely racist. Everyone being perfect would also mean everyone being the same. To come back to the Matrix: The agents are basically such superhumans, but since NEO had the ability to make decisions he could beat them anyway (or something like that...).