this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
77 points (98.7% liked)

Asklemmy

49516 readers
489 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There is an argument that free will doesn't exist because there is an unbroken chain of causality we are riding on that dates back to the beginning of time. Meaning that every time you fart, scratch your nose, blink, or make lifechanging decisions there is a pre existing reason. These reasons might be anything from the sensory enviornment you were in the past minute, the hormone levels in your bloodstream at the time, hormones you were exposed to as a baby, or how you were parented growing up. No thought you have is really original and is more like a domino affect of neurons firing off in reaction to what you have experienced. What are your thoughts on this?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sackeshi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yes but I need to define free will, I define it as the freedom to make a choice. We don't control who our parents are, we don't control what country we live in, we don't control how others interact with us but we can control what choices we make.

We can chose option A-B-C.....

[–] DaedalousIlios@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago

Tl;Dr, yes*

I find this discussion to be an exercise in frustration. There's a lot of philosophical jargon that gets glazed over and nuances that often get ignored. I also think it's an incredibly complex and complicated topic that we simply do not have enough information available to us to determine in a scientific manner.

For instance: what kind of "free will" are we talking about? Often it's "Libertarian Free Will," that is, absolute agency uninfluenced by any external factors. This much is disproven scientifically, as our brains run countless "subconscious" calculations in response to our environment to hasten decision making and is absolutely influenced by a myriad of factors, regardless of if you're conciously aware of it or not.

However, I think that the above only "disproves" all notions of free will if you divorce your "subconscious" from the rest of your being. Which is where the complication and nuance comes in. What is the "self?" What part of you can you point to as being the "real you?"

From a Christian perspective, you might say the "self" is your soul, which is not yet proven by science, and thus the above has no bearing on, as it cannot take the soul into account. But from the opposite side of the spectrum, from a Buddhist perspective, there is no eternal, unchanging, independently existing "self." And as such, the mind in its entirety, concious awarness or not, is just another part of your aggregates, and from that perspective it can be argued that a decision is no less your own just because it was not made in your conscious awareness.

With my ramblings aside, I am a Buddhist and so my opinion is that we do have free will, we're just not always consciously aware of every decision we make. And while we cannot always directly control every decision we make, we can influence and "train" our autopilot reactions to make better decisions.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Every decision you make and everything that happens is based on conditions, and nothing exists outside of conditions.

In the ultimate sense there's no such thing as free will, because everything has a conditioned existence.

[–] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

There’s a documentary about having free will to create your own fate and determine your own future. It’s called Terminator 2 Judgment Day.

Anyway, the whole thing goes: The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.

no. events and our decisions are abstracted far enough so that the illusion of free will is apparent. I think it's very well impossible to fully distinguish between free will and fate from our limited perspective

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

It's not even wrong.

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

honestly, i've never seen or heard a single coherent definition of what we even mean by 'free will'. until the question makes sense, i can't really answer it, and don't see any point in discussing it.

anyways, who here believes in blabblesnork? that is a word that refers to something, i promise, but no, i won't tell you what it means.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

You have free will, but you also have chains that bound you.

Starting from the social order, you need money and other social relations (friends, family, bosses) to literally survive in the modern world - you're not omnipotent.

Then you have the cognitive chains - stuff you know and understand, as well stuff you can invent (or reinvent) from your current knowledge - you are not omnipresent.

Then, as a consequence, without these two, you cannot be (omni)benevolent - you'll always fuck something up (and even if you didn't, most actions positive towards something will have a negative impact towards something else).

All these are pretty much categorically impossible to exist - you're not some god-damn deity.

But does this mean free will doesn't exist?

Hardly. It's just not as ultimate a power or virtue as some may put it. Flies or pigs also have free will - they're free to roll in mud or lick a turd - except for when they're not because they do it to survive (cool themselves or eat respectively).

We humans similarily eat and shit, and we go to work so we have something to eat and someplace to shit. Otherwise you die without the former or get fined without the latter.

So that's what free will is - the ability of an organism to guide what it's doing, how, when (and, to some extent, even why) it's doing it, according to its senses and sensibilities. It's the process with which we put our own, unique spin on the things in our lives.

Being an omnipotent, omnipresent and (omni)benevolent would in fact remove the essence of what free will (with all its limits) is, because our actions wouldn't have any meaningful consequences. It'd all just be an effective (what I'll call negative) chaos - a mishmush of everything only understandable to the diety.

So in fact, the essence of "free" will is that it's free within some bounds - some we've set ourselves, some we're forced with (disabilities, cognitive abilities, physical limits, etc.). Percisely in the alternative scenario would "free" will cease to be free - because someone already knows it all - past, present future, local and global, from each atom on up. There's perfect causality - as perfect as a movie. You can't change it meaningfully - any changes become a remix or remaster - they lose their originality.

With the limits on our thinking which cause us to be less-than-perfect, they cause a kind of positive chaos, one where one tries to do their best with what they have on their disposal - as they say, you get to know people best at their lowest. Similarily, everyone gets corrupted at a high enough power level - some just do it sooner than others. So surely, at an infinite power level, not even someone omnipotent, omnipresent and (omni)benevolent all at once would be able to curb this flaw.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

The circumstances that led you to any particular decision are pre-determined at the time you're making that decision, simply through the fact that those circumstances have already happened prior to the current decision at hand; but that doesn't mean you don't have the free will to make that decision in the moment.

To extend on that a little: if you were able to make the same person face the same decision multiple times under identical circumstances, I don't believe you'd get identical results every time. It may not be an even distribution between the possible choices; but it wouldn't be a consistent answer either. The Human element introduces too much chaos for that kind of uniformity.

[–] pebbles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

No. We make choices, we think, but those choices come frome somewhere. And all of the roots are beyond our control. There is no room for free will, it is a magical reduction of why we do things. We don't say a ball has free will when it is kicked down a hill. I can't separate myself from the ball in any meaningful way.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

There is only one choice: feeling or rationality.

When you feel, you do what feels best.

When you think, you do what is the most valuable.

So no free will but that choice.

[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

Fun thought exercise but functionally irrelevant. It still feels like I'm making decisions, so that's close enough.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes I do, because my own experience of existence suggests I have it. Could that all be an illusion? Sure. But believing I don't have free will would pretty much deny the existence of my self, which, being myself, I'm not really capable of, nor would I want to do that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree that there is no free will, but to act as if that is true is pointless. Nihilism isn’t useful. If it makes you feel better, you are doing what you would have done regardless even if there was free will. I don’t think the fact every action is predetermined matters much. If anything, it makes me have compassion for the worst people, who arguably were fated to be what they are because of the domino effect.

I often wonder if the dominos will ever fall in a way that guarantees us all a positive outcome. Can we heal our monsters? So that every domino thereafter creates no more?

Β―_(ツ)_/Β―

Poetically, you are the universe trying to understand itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I believe that we should treat most people as if they have free will but I don't exactly believe in the idealistic notion of free will. I believe we can make choices, but I believe our choices are limited and shaped by our experiences.

[–] banshee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I believe we do not truly have agency but have evolved to think and act as though we do. Since inputs to each choice are likely infinite (probably uncountable as opposed to countable), the lack of agency is difficult to observe.

[–] Ardycake@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Get in the car and go until the scenery looks different. Be somewhere you don't belong and you'll feel more in charge of your choices and decisions. Every single person has the ability to be a wild card and go off script if they choose it. That's free will. Embrace the wild.

[–] callyral@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago

If it looks like free will and quacks like free will, then it probably is free will.

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 1 points 1 month ago

I don’t believe one can make decisions outside of their web of being.

[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

ya'll some neo and oracle bustas up in here.

yes, as entities that are conscious of consciousness, we can steer ideas and actions with our will and intent.

This may or may not have universal implications, so stop trying to be all grandiose. we're barely existing conscious ants that have imaginations. does that mean the universe won't experience entropy? one of these things is not like the other.

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

If free will was truly non-existent, it would mean that a theoretical entity with access to perfect information would be able to perfectly predict your actions. I don't believe that is possible; I think that human beings are too irrational. Consider a very simple decision; what am I going to have for dinner? You could know the restaurants I have access to, what food is in my home, what I have discussed in a given day, and even what my current mood is; but it can ultimately come down to a whim. I could choose something I've never had before, for no reason, and seek it out.

I believe that we are individual actors in a very complex system that introduces lots of constraints to our decision-making process. We may not even be consciously aware of some of the constraints; however, we are always the ones ultimately making the decisions. You always have the option of a whim.

[–] Dr_Box@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

But your whim wouldn't really be random. It may seem random to you but there would be a reason behind it. How did you find out about the random place? You would've had to of come to the decision that you wanted something different somehow

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What about randomness? Most people would say to be random is not to have free will.

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This depends, because there are two different kinds of randomness. A lot of the "randomness" that people encounter is actually based upon something, and our theoretical entity with access to perfect information could predict the outcome of that randomness perfectly. I'm thinking of stuff like computer randomness, number generation, games of chance, that sort of thing.

However, true random absolutely exists; in the words of Terry Pratchett "Things just happen, what the hell." You see it with mutations in nature; ordinarily healthy cells can spontaneously change without directed input. It is unpredictable, even for our theoretical entity.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

Or like quantum systems, in the interpretations that prevent alternate universes. The first kind is called "pseudorandomness" in mathematics.

Usually, when people say free will they don't just mean that their decisions are random, though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

We have free will, but the majority are not free to exercise it because of material conditions and/or circumstance.

[–] quediuspayu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Does that even mater? Either stance can't be proved.

[–] sproid@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

You gave an argument against free will based on Determinism, but there are other good and even better arguments IMO. Like the science-centrist arguments of Neuroscience , Psychological and the Evolutionary Arguments. Then there are the philosophical Arguments from Divine Predestination or Fate. There are still more but the fun is on the discovery.

[–] mlegstrong@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I believe free will exists but the world is deterministic. In your life you can make any choice you want & it was decided by you. However the effect of your actions on the world is so small that it will continue on a predetermined path. Events in the future are β€œpredetermined” & all I have power over is how I react to it.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago

well atoms themselves are inherently random you can't even perceive them without them blowing the fuck away

[–] PillowTalk420@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I want to, but Determinism sounds pretty reasonable. Everything is just going with the flow from the big bang, including what happens in our consciousness. Do I think this because of my own will, or because of events set into motion billions of years ago? πŸ€”

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί