Free Will.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's been argued that since neural activity has some noise to it that this can result in different behaviors in the same situations. Could this be construed as free will? Who knows?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the things that I have read, the one thing that could possibly lead me to believe in free will is the theory of Quantam mechanics. And, unfortunately, I don't think I'm cerebral enough to understand the full implications of this theory. I think that is what you were referring to in the above quote. How I understand it is that elementary particles behave in a way that is completely random and unpredictable. Since these elementary particles can influence the sub atomic particles that they create and since the sub atomic particles create atoms and our brains are goverened by small groups of molecules then it isn't a huge leap to imagine that the randomness of the elementary particles in our brains can lead to decisions that are independent from the decisions that preceded them. But even here, we're not talking about free will, but rather, the laws of Quantum Mechanics of which we are not free to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe any physical theory thus far allows for free will. QM allows for randomness, but I don't see any way this allows for free will. I believe the lack of determinism may lead to the appearence of free will (i.e. the ability to behave differently under identical situations), but it is not occuring because you have a choice it is just because a random physical process occured differently in your brain. This is mostly my speculative opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

A computer, when programmed with "if A then B" may feel that it chooses B, but doesn't quite know the reason why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is the all behavior is conditioning or selection idea rearing its head.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't believed in free will for about 8 years now. I was going through some hard times and used to take long walks to get away from my situation. On one of these walks, I came up with a theory that I later learned is similar to if not exactly like what Buddhists call the law of dependent origination. I don't know if I have the buddhists philosophy right but to to me it means that every action is based on the action/decision/perception that directly preceded it. And of course that action/decesion/perception was based on the one right before it. And you can go back all the way until the time when you or any individual was just a toddler.

[/ QUOTE ]
But in Buddhism, I believe that one wants to become enlightened and escape this chain of causation. So if you regard the law of dependent origination as the opposite of free will, then I suppose the (Buddhist) conclusion is that free will exists, but only for the enlightened.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is the all behavior is conditioning or selection idea rearing its head.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've probably answered it before on this forum, but what do you make of it? You believe in it or not?

[ QUOTE ]
Free will cannot be understood in a scientific framework. It is an illusion or it is supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. Logically, i think, free will can be shown to be unlikely. But it's not something no experiment can prove or disprove. By the way, the principle of randomness shows that the Universes own laws are illogical, at least from our point of view, before we invented a math to explain them. (feel free to flame me for that comment) So even though free will isn't the logical conclusion, it may still be the reality of our lives.

[ QUOTE ]
But in Buddhism, I believe that one wants to become enlightened and escape this chain of causation. So if you regard the law of dependent origination as the opposite of free will, then I suppose the (Buddhist) conclusion is that free will exists, but only for the enlightened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe, in fact, that that is what they believe. So Buddhists do in fact worship the supernatural, by trying to become it or gain one of its properties.

[ QUOTE ]

The Oxford Handbook of Freewill editted by Kane is a very thorough treatment of the subject from many different perspecitves. It is not the most accessible book, but excellent if you want that level of detail. If you want an easier to digest version that describes compatibilism (free will and determinism are compatible under that account) then read Simon Blackburn's Think. A cautionary note, it seems very likely that compatibilism is untenable, but it is very popular in many philosophical circles. Best of luck in your search.

[/ QUOTE ]

A truly useful post. Thank you!

[J. Stew]

Can you choose to think or not to think? If you can't contol your thoughts then you are subject to them which wouldn't be free will. If you try to control your thoughts you are not free because you are contolling yourself. So the only answer is to realize that you are not what you are thinking. After realization of what it is that lies behind thought, you are just acting out of what you are, which is the same for everyone, but of course you can still do whatever you want to do, you just won't be acting as yourself because your self that lies behind thought doesn't strive to do anything but be that which it already is. So you have the free will to do whatever you want, but if you are trully being yourself, what is the need for free will?