I'm curious about this age-old debate...

[greybeta]

[Poll #1390687]

Comments

[esper3k.livejournal.com]

I'd like to say that I believe that there truly is Free Will, but I fundamentally believe that given enough knowledge, every event in the universe is predictable, so I believe that we think we have Free Will, but we really don't.

Ultimately though, this has very little bearing on our day to day lives as we have no real option than to continue on as we normally do since whether or not everything we do is predictable, the fact that we can't perceive it shouldn't get in the way of our normal functioning (unless you let it).

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Both!

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Have to agree with esper3k. Everything is part of a cause and effect chain which leaves the ultimate cause of our decisions outside of ourselves. This means we don't have any free will as such and everything is predetermined. But because we don't know what the result of our decisions are, we're not capable of knowing the future, we perceive the notion of free will.

That's the short hand version. Long hand version available on request.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

How do you figure?

[good-benito.livejournal.com]

I kinda have to be a free will person. Determinism tends to send me into a funk of inaction. If it's predetermined, why bother?

I also tend towards deism when I think there might be a God.

[jacobford.livejournal.com]

Can't they be compatible? I may have free will, but I'm still shaped by outside influences that interfere with said will. I could very easily go on a shooting rampage, but I was raised to believe that mass murder isn't a very good thing (also, I'm not good with guns). So determinism just influences what choices you're more likely to make.

The way I always saw it, if you're looking ahead, you can see any number of choices and paths you can take, so free will trumps determinism. But if you're looking behind, you can see the chain of events that led you to where you are, so determinism trumps free will. I suppose it's mostly relative.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I'll explain my position in a lengthy post soon.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is one solution many people come up with. =)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Long hand version requested. I'll write out my long hand as soon as I get into a writing mood.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

We are not pawns of fate, right? =)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Sure, they can be compatible, but they're most often defined in ways that are not. I'll give my take on this soon enough.

[cynicalcleric.livejournal.com]

Seems reasonable.

+1

[alexmegami]

I actually can no longer talk about this branch of philosophy with my boyfriend, because I might kill him in a rage.

Also postmodernism, which, considering that it's basically what he did with his English degree, is a problem... ;P

[jacobford.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they're defined as such, but there's still some distinction between "hard" determinism, which is not compatible with free will, and "soft" determinism. which is. So sayeth the Wiki. I've always been a soft determinist, with a slight libertarian leaning.