Does free will exist from a secular point of view?

[Community Values]

Ultimate free will can never exist. Have laws to let everyone do anything? Someone will end up exploited by an unregulated loan shark or something. Stop that, well technically you're taking away the loan shark's free will.

Kill everyone but one person.

Violate all of humanity's free will so one person can achieve ultimate free will.

[Alvecia]

I think we have free will in the sense that even if the exact conditions were the same twice, there is still a random element to the decision making process.

1. How can exactly identical conditions produce different results?
2. Even if what you say is true and there is a random element, how is random will "free"? "Random" suggests that you do not will the outcome.

Not gonna lie, you've prompted some thought and research on the matter.
But 2. I was going to answer that free will isn't technically true, granted, but it was the best term that I could come up with at the time.

[Ashmoria]

Say yes or no and then your justification. I'm SUPER curious what NSG's are thinking about this. A couple good rules though:

1. This is a debate forum specifically about free will from a secular context. So if someone says they do not believe in free will and they cite the bible for their reasoning, feel free to tell them they're in the wrong forum. And make sure to put a lot of devils like when you do it.
2. If you believe in free will, don't say something like, "Of course it exist! I picked what I had for breakfast!" You gotta have reason that the choice of what to eat for breakfast was truly only yours.
3. Whether you believe what you say or not, arguments originating from any religious source will probably get laughed at.

Ummmm, just found out I have to type my opinion here or risk getting this locked. I don't believe in Free Will. As stated later in this forum, I think there are too many psychological and biological factors at play. *Whispers to secretary* Am I done? I am? Good!
*normal voice* Religious folk can post here, your reasoning just can't be religious.
Thanks!

even my cats have free will

I, like them, have constraints on what I can choose but I still choose freely.

[Community Values]

No. At least, not with what we know about science right now. There are random elements in the universe. Would you say that if we had enough information, we could determine patterns out of them?

Wat

I'm not good with physics (obviously), but from what my Quantum Physics minor dad told me, is that something or other (Pretty sure it's like quarks or Plancks), but I think he told me about something having to do with complete randomness.

It might be this

[Alvecia]

I guess I'm just not convinced that the brain always reacts the same way to the same stimuli.

[Conscentia]

No. At least, not with what we know about science right now.

Science is methodologically deterministic as the scientific method depends on falsifiability, which itself depends on causality. Non-deterministic interpretations are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable.

There are random elements in the universe.[...]

There are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics that have not yet been ruled out.

[Community Values]

Honestly, I don't want to believe solipsism and determinism exist because it's just an incredibly depressing way to live, knowing that everything you do, and everything you could hope to achieve, is not determined by you, but by some cosmic process.

[Montchevre]

Of course free will exists- to an extent. Research into decision-making shows that people often have subconsciously made a choice before they consciously select an option, so clearly that limits our frontal lobe's free will. Another hindrance is the patterns of thought we have ingrained into our minds. We are far more likely to have choices eliminated based on personal belief and ideology than anything else. Do we necessarily CHOOSE these ideologies? Usually not; we are raised in them. So while I say we fundamentally have free will, it is somewhat skewed and slightly predetermined, but mostly just by yourself.

[Killdash]

It really depends on your concept of free will, I suppose.

If you seek a biological basis for it, I can't help you, and I don't think anyone can. Though obviously I'd like to hear it if you do have an argument.

If you mean free will from a philosophical point of view, you must first define "free will" as a concept, therefore to draw your conclusions from.

I extend an open question: How do you define free will?

[Gages Icelandic Army]

And a friendly reminder to take the survey!

[Communal Ecotopia]

I believe in constrained free will. Certainly not all options are open to us all of the time be it because of genetics, environment, etc., but those who argue for determinism by reason of, say, DNA overestimate the impact such a thing has on choice. Our proteins, neurotransmitters, etc. are so variable over life that I believe we have a menu (and a fairly large one at that) of options from which to choose.

[New Grestin]

I'd argue that the answer is no.

Human behavior is influenced by basic instincts, particularly the need for sustenance, reproduction, pleasure, and socialization, though this is only to name a few. Those needs are augmented by the values and ideas instilled in a person by their parent or caregiver from an early age. Additionally, social interaction and society itself put their mark on an individual's psyche. Those values and ideas will inevitably influence the behavior of the individual. We believe that our choices are our own, when in reality our choices are influence from everything to how our lunch went yesterday, to the greater state of the global economy and market forces. Everything connects to everything else in some capacity, no matter how small, and those connections push and pull to influence your behavior.

In the simplest way of explaining it, I believe in that Determinism is likely the correct answer to that question, though that's not to say that there even is an absolute answer.

[Communal Ecotopia]

There is no free will, since every possible outcome is equaly valid. Did you chose between cereal and stay puff marshmallows? That's not free will, they both happened! You just happen to be in the reality where you went with the boring cereal.

This dangerously assumes the existence of alternate realities coexisting simultaneously.

That's certainly one option, but not the only one.

[Alvecia]

And a friendly reminder to take the survey!

Is this for your homework or something? That's kind of frowned upon.

[The Liberated Territories]

Yes, and it is compatible with determinism.

[Conscentia]

Honestly, I don't want to believe solipsism and determinism exist because it's just an incredibly depressing way to live, knowing that everything you do, and everything you could hope to achieve, is not determined by you, but by some cosmic process.

Perhaps the problem is that you think of yourself as apart from the process and the cosmos? Your view of yourself is too narrow.

[Conscentia]

Yes, and it is compatible with determinism.

Glancing at it, this guy is just redefining "free will" such that it is no longer a problem of metaphysics but a problem of politics.

[Alvecia]

Yes, and it is compatible with determinism.

Urgh, that's just too much. I'd probably have better luck breaking down a brick wall with my head than trying to parse exactly what he's trying to put forward.

[The Liberated Territories]

Yes, and it is compatible with determinism.

Glancing at it, this guy is just redefining "free will" such that it is no longer a problem of metaphysics but a problem of politics.

That's part of the thing he is arguing against, actually. In the first couple of sentences:

The later material reflects my current belief that the use of the word "free" in the determinism controversy confuses metaphysical issues with political issues. I have not changed the titles or the use of the word "free" in the earlier essays because they contribute to the development of my view.

[Conscentia]

Glancing at it, this guy is just redefining "free will" such that it is no longer a problem of metaphysics but a problem of politics.

That's part of the thing he is arguing against, actually. In the first couple of sentences:

The later material reflects my current belief that the use of the word "free" in the determinism controversy confuses metaphysical issues with political issues. I have not changed the titles or the use of the word "free" in the earlier essays because they contribute to the development of my view.

"Later". Scrolling to the last three he defends using "free" in it's political, rather than metaphysical, sense. He's not arguing against what I said he was doing - he's acknowledging the confusion over the word "free" but then proceeds to argue against using "free" in a metaphysical sense saying that it's "inappropriate". His solution to the confusion is to do exactly what I said he was doing.

[Galloism]

What is free will?

When you go get a free legal form online and just fill in your assets and who is to inherit them and print it out and sign it.

[Environmental Support]

The way that I see it, yes, all beings have free will. However humans are infinitely predictable. You can choose to go against your biological and natural functions that dictate what you should do, ex. 75% of tumblr, but it is easily predictable what a majority of people will do based on physiology. Also, nothing is really ever completely original, probability and statistically speaking, anything that you so creatively think up, has very likely been though up before.

[Salvostella]

Of course free will is a thing.

[Environmental Support]

Of course free will is a thing.

Profound *heavy sarcasm*
Please explain your view point a bit more.

[The Liberated Territories]

That's part of the thing he is arguing against, actually. In the first couple of sentences:

"Later". Scrolling to the last three he defends using "free" in it's political, rather than metaphysical, sense. He's not arguing against what I said he was doing - he's acknowledging the confusion over the word "free" but then proceeds to argue against using "free" in a metaphysical sense saying that it's "inappropriate". His solution to the confusion is to do exactly what I said he was doing.

Here~

I reject the idea of "free will" where the word "free" is used to designate exemption from causality. But I also object to the use of the word "free" to designate exemption from causality. Freedom means absence of ongoing compulsion, coercion or constraint. I do not believe that the will is unfree by this use of the word freedom. I believe that the will has been causally determined by the material factors which created it, but that will is not subject to ongoing compulsion. Thus, my objective view that the will is free correlates with my subjective experience of being able to make choices and decisions — of being able to express my will.

Casuality is not coercive, according to him, by this viewpoint, as the will - though a product of casualty, is not bound by it. Because of this point is it inappropriate to talk about materialism as being coercive, in the sense that it restricts our free will. For example, if I were put in a position where I had, through casuality, had to chop off my own infected arm in order to stop an infection, I cannot say that casuality is coercive by this definition because the definition of coercion relies on the existence of a choice in the first place, or I cannot say that I was willed to chop off my arm because my will remained independent from casuality.