I don't see how doing things from "chemical reactions" negates free will. I do believe there is free will. I can make a decision and act on it or not.

I completely understand where you are coming from. Every thing that will happen has already been decided by all of the particles in the universe having been set in motion, with nothing to interfere.

I don't know the answer to this philosophical conundrum that has boggled mankind's greatest minds for millennium, I'm just a young man on a forum. From Aristotle to Sutra, it's been discussed, debated and deliberated in religious, philosophical, psychological and mans earliest scientific text. Because of this I refuse to fulfill your criterion in beginning this discussion with an answer to your question. Because, while my scouring and pondering of the subject could be considered fairly in-depth by standards of the average person, I think it would be immensely arrogant for me to profess to know the answer. That is to say, to be knowledgeable enough to answer it in simple yes or no terms. When the truth is, I do not know.
That said, I see no reason not to discuss this.

So please don't consider this a frigid, static debate from me, so much as an open ended discussion; with my beliefs flexible. And a discussion I optimistically want to enjoy.

The answer doesn't strike me as objective, yet. As far as I'm aware it's still a very debatable subject. I think it has less to do with fact, which we still don't have a lot to work with in our day and age, due to our still limited understanding of the universe and life. I think it has more to do with the persons belief. More specifically, I think that people will choose to believe what they want to believe. I believe that this subject encompasses more than a simple yes or no question and involves many aspects of the human psyche.


I'd like to address the perspective of everything being decided by fate, being predetermined or in any other way outside of human control. Psychologically determinism and predeterminism tend to go hand in hand with existential and moral nihilism. After all, if everything is outside of our control and if our decisions aren't truly free will, then what is to say anything we do is of consequence? What's to say any of what we do or if any of this matters? Now, I don't think these perspectives or beliefs have no foot to stand on. I've found it's more than possible to debate from this perspective, if you try it yourself you can have a little sparring match inside your head. But I'm not sure if I adhere to this sort of logic.
If you think about it, it's easy to crack everything up to outside our control in some way. Because things that are outside of our control are usually outside of our understanding. Making it a simple thing to enlist as the backbone for your belief and subsequently your debate.
We still don't know for certain if there's some sort of force truly outside of our control, propelling everything in such a way that can be described as predetermined. That doesn't make it any less believable however, especially when you consider how minuscule we are in comparison to our meager attempts to understand the grand scope of the universe.


If we do our bests to try and understand the universe, the totality of existence. It's easy to see that much is out of our control, at least for the time being. Earth could be easily wiped out in an instant by a plethora of things in space that are simply outside of our control. This would be terrifying, except that it's outside of our comprehension. We perceive the earth as this indomitable object we exist on, it's constant, it has persisted since before mankind and may persist beyond mankind (as we know it). Long before and long after our fleeting lives and this very discussion have been smoothed out by the sands of time, Earth. But in reality Earth and mankind could be annihilated in an instant, by things we've discovered and many things outside of our knowledge or understanding. The very idea contradicts what we instinctively believe, based on what we absorb in our surroundings. The earth is seemingly the most massive thing our senses can perceive, even though we're aware that there are plenty of things more massive. I'll try to get to the point, to wrap this up.

Mathematicians have been attempting to crunch mind blowing numbers on the possibility of Earths survival and even life as we know it on Earth. By any measurement it's apparent that it's all extremely unlikely. That's why the idea of some sort of force outside of our control, predeterminism, is believable. While we could just choose to shrug and call it all cosmic coincidence. When you get right down to brass tax, even our own lives will invariably end and all we can do is postpone it. As the main character in fight club aptly put "On a long enough time line the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". But we've contemplated life and death, afterlife, reincarnation, etc, for millennium. Our inevitable death is another example of something outside of our control that we don't fully understand. At least, not in an objective way. It's still quite debatable.
Obviously I could go on ad nauseum.
It's understandable for people to believe in forces outside of our control, likewise, to possess an equal amount of skepticism.

I'll leave it at this, for the moment

I'd be thrilled in hearing any perspective on this subject from anyone especially from the side of determinism. As I have a lot on the subject of causality to bring up and I'm interested in how that could potentially relate to determinism. My personal beliefs on the subject will remain out of the discussion for now.

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I'd say we need to define 'one', and 'fate' to fully understand that definition of free will you've given.

Fate: be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way.

Now say I give you a gun and two people are in a room with you (both are unable to do anything but watch/die) and I tell you the gun has 1 bullet in it. For whatever reason you hate both of these people and want to kill them, and I tell you after you fire your single bullet you will be killed.

It's your choice to shoot one of them over the other, or to decide to shoot neither, or to decide to shoot something else. It's not your choice that I only put a blank in the gun and actually you can't kill anyone with a bullet, but being 'fated' to not be able to kill either person because of me does not take away from your decided choice when you pull that trigger.

However, a different way of looking at that 'fate' in terms of free will is not in your decision you make but in your ability to make that decision. That your decision making process is fated? Right?

So then we need to work out what the 'one' or 'self' is to think about if that can be able to make its own decisions in a non fated way - that it could have chosen differently in the same scenario.

I don't think we'd be able to get a coherent definition of the 'self', but does being able to perfectly predict a decision someone makes detract from their choice when they make the decision in the moment? I guess we could say the person's decision making process was fated, in that we knew what choice they would make before they made it, but I'm not convinced that removes the validity of them choosing for themselves even though hypothetically we predicted them.

Quote from Preserve

I don't see how doing things from "chemical reactions" negates free will. I do believe there is free will. I can make a decision and act on it or not.

First off, what makes you think that you are an I? What is this "I" you are referring to?

How do you consider yourself a single entity when you're just made up of a bunch of particles indefinitely moving and vibrating in space?

Well we can control what We do and dont do so of course we have free will.

I have always held the position that free will and predestination are not mutually exclusive.

Say, for example, I invent an omniscient machine. Now, say it scans your brain and compiles all that information; every atom and it's whereabouts. It still cannot predict what will happen simply because of the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics, as at some level, events are random. This means we are not predestined.

Conversely, assume a man who is depressed or schizophrenic. This person cannot be said to have true "free will," can he? He is a victim to the manipulation of the outside world. He cannot have fun when he pleases, or cannot look at reality as he pleases. Because of physical imbalance, he does not have the ability to chose whatever option would theoretically be available at any given time. This applies to everyone to some degree, as our brains are all different and are incapable of some form of thought. If we cannot think something, we are restricted. If we are restricted, we do not have complete free will.

In other words, we are predestined by the laws of the universe biding the chemical reactions inside our brains (and possibly our souls for those who chose to believe that humans take a nonphysical spiritual side), yet by those same rules we cannot be predestined. Our lives are like the game "Life." Some people have different decisions and abilities based on well-structured and determined dice rolls that are allowed by the natural systems we exist in.

I'd hold the position that free will and pre determinism can in fact be compatible even if said omniscient machine could actually predict the future perfectly in spite of the quantum world, on the basis that being predicted to make a decision does not detract from the meaning of the decision to make it.

Quote from CharlemagneTheHedgehog

What is this "I" you are referring to?

Me, my conscience.

How do you consider yourself a single entity when you're just made up of a bunch of particles indefinitely moving and vibrating in space?

Because those combinations of particles is what makes everything about me. Again I don't see the problem with this and don't understand the argument that parts of "something" somehow's nullifies the whole.

Quote from Xeno

Debate Question: Does free will exist?

Definition:

free will
noun
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Can there actually be free will if everything we do are just chemical reactions? Are we programmed robots just reacting to everything?

Please structure your central response like this >

[Answer the debate question]
[Anything you want]
[Conclude or tldr]

Come on, man, dictionaries don't resolve philosophical problems. Redefining the term "free will" is an entirely legitimate way of solving the problem.

Quote from Preserve

I don't see how doing things from "chemical reactions" negates free will. I do believe there is free will. I can make a decision and act on it or not.

Say more.

Quote from Root

I completely understand where you are coming from. Every thing that will happen has already been decided by all of the particles in the universe having been set in motion, with nothing to interfere.

Say more.

Quote from CharlemagneTheHedgehog

First off, what makes you think that you are an I? What is this "I" you are referring to?

How do you consider yourself a single entity when you're just made up of a bunch of particles indefinitely moving and vibrating in space?

Questions of identity are a lot of fun but have almost nothing to do with the question at hand.

Quote from stickdude74

Well we can control what We do and dont do so of course we have free will.

Say more.

Quote from TheMasterFez

I have always held the position that free will and predestination are not mutually exclusive.

Say, for example, I invent an omniscient machine. Now, say it scans your brain and compiles all that information; every atom and it's whereabouts. It still cannot predict what will happen simply because of the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics, as at some level, events are random. This means we are not predestined.

The uncertainty principle demonstrates that we can never measure accurately enough to predict someone's actions, but that doesn't mean they aren't pre-ordained. True randomness comes from radioactive decay, and it would be quite an extreme position to hold that our brains are full of previously-unnoticed radioactive material. And even if they were, randomness is not the same as choice.

Conversely, assume a man who is depressed or schizophrenic. This person cannot be said to have true "free will," can he? He is a victim to the manipulation of the outside world. He cannot have fun when he pleases, or cannot look at reality as he pleases. Because of physical imbalance, he does not have the ability to chose whatever option would theoretically be available at any given time. This applies to everyone to some degree, as our brains are all different and are incapable of some form of thought. If we cannot think something, we are restricted. If we are restricted, we do not have complete free will.

I think you can define two different kinds of freedom here. There seems to be a difference between someone having their choices restricted in such a way as they will surely notice (i.e. by putting them in a situation where they have to choose between two alternatives) and someone thinking they have a number of options whilst their choice between them is actually pre-determined.

Quote from Jutsu

The answer doesn't strike me as objective, yet. As far as I'm aware it's still a very debatable subject. I think it has less to do with fact, which we still don't have a lot to work with in our day and age, due to our still limited understanding of the universe and life. I think it has more to do with the persons belief. More specifically, I think that people will choose to believe what they want to believe. I believe that this subject encompasses more than a simple yes or no question and involves many aspects of the human psyche.

You know I love you, man. Don't test me by going all relativist. That's French philosophy, that is.

Quote from Skeletonxf

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I'd say we need to define 'one', and 'fate' to fully understand that definition of free will you've given.

Fate: be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way.

Now say I give you a gun and two people are in a room with you (both are unable to do anything but watch/die) and I tell you the gun has 1 bullet in it. For whatever reason you hate both of these people and want to kill them, and I tell you after you fire your single bullet you will be killed.

It's your choice to shoot one of them over the other, or to decide to shoot neither, or to decide to shoot something else. It's not your choice that I only put a blank in the gun and actually you can't kill anyone with a bullet, but being 'fated' to not be able to kill either person because of me does not take away from your decided choice when you pull that trigger.

However, a different way of looking at that 'fate' in terms of free will is not in your decision you make but in your ability to make that decision. That your decision making process is fated? Right?

So then we need to work out what the 'one' or 'self' is to think about if that can be able to make its own decisions in a non fated way - that it could have chosen differently in the same scenario.

I don't think we'd be able to get a coherent definition of the 'self', but does being able to perfectly predict a decision someone makes detract from their choice when they make the decision in the moment? I guess we could say the person's decision making process was fated, in that we knew what choice they would make before they made it, but I'm not convinced that removes the validity of them choosing for themselves even though hypothetically we predicted them.

I agree with your method but I disagree with your focus on "fate" and "self".

Quote from Skeletonxf

I'd hold the position that free will and pre determinism can in fact be compatible even if said omniscient machine could actually predict the future perfectly in spite of the quantum world, on the basis that being predicted to make a decision does not detract from the meaning of the decision to make it.

I think Skeletonxf is on the right lines. But instead of asking about the meaning of "fate" and "self", the important question is whether or not the meaning of "free will" in the OP is adequate, and what it means for the universe to be predictable. Let's set aside notions of quantum indeterminacy and randomness for a moment. Suppose a sufficiently intelligent mind could predict the future perfectly if it knew the location and velocity of every particle in a given moment. Does this contradict the notion of free will?

The crucial feature of free will, it seems to me, is that we are able to do what we want.

It is possible to restrict free will in the first sense mentioned with TheMasterFez. That is to say, we can restrict a person's options. In this case, they might not be able to do what they want most, but they will still do what they want most out of the available options. But this doesn't seem to defeat free will. If you tell someone they have to choose between an apple and an orange, that's not enough to deny them free will. Arguments against free will rely on there being only one option which a person could possibly take.

To restrict free will in the other sense, however, would be nonsensical. It would require that someone wanted - indeed, chose - to do one thing, but their body did another and they didn't even notice.

The determinist position is that we can always predict what someone will choose because that choice is a function of their desires, but following your desires is sufficient for the existence of free will. Therefore there is no contradiction in someone having free will in a universe where everything is pre-determined.

What about Libet's research that showed the action potential for a voluntary decision was registered in the brain a fraction of a second before the test subjects were consciously aware of the fact that they made a decision?

Meaning the decision was driven purely by involuntary, subconscious electrical processes in the brain, leading to an action that the conscious mind becomes aware of only after the decision to act is already made. But subjectively, it feels like the decision was consciously motivated.

It's not an outright invalidation of free-will but it does offer the possibility that what we do is the result of subconscious drives even though we feel like our conscious mind decides what we do and don't do. It at least adds some credibility to the idea that free will is little more than an illusion in certain instances.

I learnt about Benjamin Libet's research when I was in school. I'm reading up right now on how reliable it is before I post here. As much as I value knowledge, the fundamental idea of whether or not Free Will exists is one of those questions that I sometimes don't want to know the answer to. Because knowing it might hamper the fun of having it.