It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by theendisnear69
haha did you watch that movie Waking Life? Because I swear they say almost exactly the same thing in that movie.
Originally posted by ghaleon12
I agree with you. Free will seems to be a touchy subject, some really want to believe they have free will but it isn't the case. Even looking at the influence of genetics and upbringing, you'll realize that you'd didn't have any choice in the matter.
Originally posted by SlightlyAmazing
How can you have free-will if everything on a sub-atomic level works according to physical laws you have no hope of altering? Or are we altering the actions of sub-atomic particles by exercising our free will? Or am I completely misunderstanding physics (which is certainly possible.. if an explanation as to how I'm so very wrong can be given I'd appreciate it)?
Hey, Nyte Angel, what if it's not just people but the whole universe that's one consciouness?
Originally posted by Astyanax
I agree with the OP. The evidence is overwhelming.
The physical determinist argument is pretty convincing. Even though quantum indeterminacy is borne out by experiment, it seems that, at a macroscopic level, the uncertainty averages out; decoherence occurs deterministically. Other theoretical possibilities exist, but this is how the world really works.
On a human level, all rational individual actions must be the effective outcome of three factors: genetic inheritance, personal history and current circumstances. Any act that is not influenced by one or more of these factors is by definition random.
And in the unlikely event that there really is a God, well then, all bets are off and Calvin's vile principle of 'election' must hold true.
The conclusion is unavoidable. The OP is correct. Free will does not exist. Yet we must (because we can only) behave as if it does.
Makes you want to chew your foot off, doesn't it?
Flagged thread.
Originally posted by Syntax123
Originally posted by Astyanax
I agree with the OP. The evidence is overwhelming.
All I see is people making assertions with nothing to back themselves up. This is not even on par with pseudoscience, becuase pseudoscience at least tries to present some scientific evidence.
I think you dismiss Astyanax a bit too quickly there Syntax. Determinism is a well established philosophical viewpoint, not pseudoscience at all. (Yes, determinism is arguable, but hasn't been proven to be wrong -- yet.)
en.wikipedia.org...
And what Astyanax is saying (if I understand correctly) is that the indeterminancy at the quantum level doesn't really affect our macro existence.
I've seen that argument before, about randomness at the quantum level disproving determinism. So Astyanax makes a valid point by stating it may be at too low a level to apply to anything, after averaging out its effects.
Take a close look at what is being said here. I know it sounds flakey, but it really is rock solid.
What happens to a quantum particle in the real world is that each of its component states gets entangled (separately) with different aspects of its environment. As seen in the page on Quantum Entanglement, when particles become entangled you have to consider them as one single, entangled state (you use the tensor product to calculate the resultant state). So each component of our quantum particle forms separate entangled states. The phases of these states will be altered. This destroys the coherent phase relationships between the components. The components are said to decohere.
Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings.
IN THE late 1990s a previously blameless American began collecting child pornography and propositioning children. On the day before he was due to be sentenced to prison for his crimes, he had his brain scanned. He had a tumour. When it had been removed, his paedophilic tendencies went away. When it started growing back, they returned. When the regrowth was removed, they vanished again. Who then was the child abuser?
His case dramatically illustrates the challenge that modern neuroscience is beginning to pose to the idea of free will...
* * *
Originally posted by Syntax123
Originally posted by theendisnear69
haha did you watch that movie Waking Life? Because I swear they say almost exactly the same thing in that movie.
Heh, never heard of it. Is it worth watching?