# Do you believe in the free will?



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

According to mainstream science, free will doesn't exist. Human minds are just a combination of cause-and-effect and randomness. Do you agree with scientists like Stephen Hawking and most of his peers in science? Or are you a person who doesn't agree with the mainstream scientific view?


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

What is free will? If you try to discover the root of it, the concept vanishes altogether.
What is fate? If you try to understand the essence of it, it has no foundation.

The duality between free will and fate is an illusion. It is merely an intellectual diversion.


----------



## Duke of Prunes (Jul 20, 2009)

Still trolling I see.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

Duke of Prunes said:


> Still trolling I see.


Beat me to it :lol


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

Asking philosophical questions is now considered trolling here? I'm really starting to hate this board.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

Mc Borg said:


> Asking philosophical questions is now considered trolling here? I'm really starting to hate this board.


Before jumping to conclusions you should look at the other threads Relaxation has been posting in the "Atheism/Agnosticism" section.


----------



## Belshazzar (Apr 12, 2010)

SilentLoner said:


> Before jumping to conclusions you should look at the other threads Relaxation has been posting in the "Atheism/Agnosticism" section.


No need, all the polls are of the same form:

"Do you believe in the Word of Science, as taught to us by the Church of Science?

-Of course, I am science-bot, a chance creation of the cold deterministic laws of a godless universe. There can be no meaning or feeling in my circuits because I am programmed by science to know this. If I only had a heart...existence is meaningless...I think I shall visit my brother Marvin.
-No, I do not subscribe to the views of the Church of Science because I am a rational, spiritual, and good person, and dammit, people like me. I can think quite fine for myself without the help of science and its authoritarian clergy."

I would be interested in reading about this Theory of Determinism in a scientific journal, though -- it certainly wasn't in any of my science textbooks in high school or college.


----------



## shale (Jul 24, 2010)

Many Theologians deny the existence of free will too. Determinism isn't just an Atheist concept.


----------



## broseph (Jan 18, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> According to mainstream science, free will doesn't exist. Human minds are just a combination of cause-and-effect and randomness.


Where did you get this idea? Free will is still a very open question and we have pretty much no real idea how our mind's work.

Do you have a Hawking quote regarding free will?


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

> Before jumping to conclusions you should look at the other threads Relaxation has been posting in the "Atheism/Agnosticism" section.


So your claim is that this particular thread is "trolling" because I have made other threads in another forum that you didn't like. lol



> Many Theologians deny the existence of free will too. Determinism isn't just an Atheist concept.


Exactly. A person could believe in a higher power and still believe in determinism. This is a science question.



> Where did you get this idea? Free will is still a very open question and we have pretty much no real idea how our mind's work.
> Do you have a Hawking quote regarding free will?


In modern science there is either causation or randomness. Anything outside of this would be like having faith since there is no evidence to back it up. You can believe what you want to believe, but don't call it science if there is no science showing that it exists.

Here is a quote from Stephen Hawking:
*"We already know the basic physical laws that govern the activity of the brain, and they are comparatively simple." *
He argues that the only reason why we cannot predict human behavior is because there are too many particles involved.

Scientist and author Leonard Mlodinow was on Larry King Live just last night. He was debating with spiritual leader Deepak Chopra. Chopra said that believing in determinism means there is no such thing as creativity. Mlodinow said that in science, everything in the brain is "*governed by physics*".

*Albert Einstein flat out states that free will does not exist.*

Charles Darwin states very clearly: 
*"the general delusion about free will [is] obvious*." 
He went further and stated that making criminals go to jail should be done "*solely to deter others*" and "*one deserves no credit for anything&#8230; nor ought one to blame others*."


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

Relaxation said:


> So your claim is that this particular thread is "trolling" because I have made other threads in another forum that you didn't like. lol


You might want to read the comments in your own threads, I'm far from the only one that sees what you're up to. Heck, as I recall even the mods had to lock some of your topics.


----------



## Misanthropic (Jun 25, 2010)

In my observation, mainstream scientists do not have the chutzpah to admit that science has long since discredited the idea, even though it's so obvious that if a brain is a physical object, it must be subject to the same laws as every other physical object (at least in the macro universe).


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Can't answer the poll.

Complex question fallacy, like lots of your other polls/threads.


----------



## Belshazzar (Apr 12, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> Here is a quote from Stephen Hawking:
> *"We already know the basic physical laws that govern the activity of the brain, and they are comparatively simple." *
> He argues that the only reason why we cannot predict human behavior is because there are too many particles involved.
> 
> ...


*"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. *" -Isaac Newton

Hmm, science must support theism if Isaac Newton said so.

By the way, neuroscience and psychology experiments have been done concerning free will. However, because there is no agreed upon operational definition of free will, there is much debate over whether this research supports or negates free will.



huh said:


> Can't answer the poll.
> 
> Complex question fallacy, like lots of your other polls/threads.


As well as the law of excluded middle. I started a thread called Dan Dennett and Compatibilism over at A&A to discuss the middle ground between hard determinism and libertarianism.


----------



## Belshazzar (Apr 12, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> Just because you aren't willing to answer polls where you don't like the answer doesn't make it a complex question fallacy.


I'm not attacking you personally, but the polls you post in science and A&A are intended to "bait" a certain segment of users. The answers are usually gross simplifications or false dichotomies. That said, they are usually on important and interesting topics, but they aren't presented in an honest fashion.



Relaxation said:


> That quote is actually mis-attributed to Newton.


Missing the point. Whether or not he said that, Newton was a firm religious believer and practiced alchemy. My point was that digging up quotes from scientists expressing an opinion about something does not make it the position of "science."



Relaxation said:


> Yes, but in science, something is only believed if there is proof. The onus is on the person making the claim to show evidence. So if someone wanted to make the claim that free will exists, they have to prove it. Otherwise we could say that unicorns exist.


The problem is that free will is categorically different than unicorns. Unicorns are easy to test for: Are there horses with horns on their heads? Free will is not this simple -- there are massive disagreements about its definition even within established philosophies of free will. Because of this fuzziness, it's difficult to reconcile theory and observation. But you can't say there is zero evidence -- e.g., see the Neurophilosophy of Free Will for a summary of some research and models.


----------



## Hadron92 (Apr 17, 2009)

No, I don't. We are all machines who are part of a natural process. We have no purpose or free-will. We just are.


----------



## broseph (Jan 18, 2010)

For someone who supposedly has such a strong belief in science your polls are really unscientific. And it's pretty obvious you're trolling.


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

Belief in free will and belief in atheism are not mutually exclusive. This poll only reflects on the OP's ignorance.


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> LOL did you actually READ this thread? I never said they were not mutually exclusive.


Alright, if you agree that they are not mutually exclusive, why did you offer only two choices in the poll? Did you intend to exclude a certain proportion of voters?


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

TheGreatPretender said:


> Belief in free will and belief in atheism are not mutually exclusive. This poll only reflects on the OP's ignorance.


This thread has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with science.


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> This thread has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with science.


Determinism is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. It's funny how you delete your old reply to my post once you realize that it is completely illogical and then make a new one that is equally illogical.


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

TheGreatPretender said:


> Determinism is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. It's funny how you delete your old reply to my post once you realize that it is completely illogical and then make a new one that is equally illogical.


HUH!?!? I only deleted the last reply because your reply was not even at all on topic with the thread. You talked about how *atheism* was not mutually exclusive with free will. This thread has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with atheism. I have no idea what you're even referring to. Cause-and-effect are part of science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

You have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy nor science. I could continue to disprove every sad attempt you make at a rebuttal, but debating with such an ignorant person provides no intellectual challenge. Besides, everyone can already see that you have absolutely no credibility. I don't even need to say anything.


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

TheGreatPretender said:


> You have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy nor science. I could continue to disprove every sad attempt you make at a rebuttal, but debating with such an ignorant person provides no intellectual challenge. Besides, everyone can already see that you have absolutely no credibility. I don't even need to say anything.


And yet here you are obsessed with following every thread I make in multiple forums argueing with me. :roll Somehow I'm the one who is "wrong" when you're the one who thinks I'm talking about *ATHEISM* in this thread?!?!?! If you think I'm not good at philosophy/science, you must have failed reading comprehension.


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

You seem quite upset. Are you alright?


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

Upset isn't the right word. More like surprised since I'm not used to having stalkers.



> Determinism is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one


Have you heard of *neuroscience* before? I know reading isn't your strength but seriously, you said you were a science student so I take it that you would have atleast heard of the science studying determinism: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/is-free-will-an/

And even biologists have shown models of determinism: http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

But I'm sure that a 19 year old science student knows more about what constitutes science compared to actual scientists.


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

You're right. Reading isn't my strength. I received an 800 on the math and writing portions of the SAT, but only a 750 on the reading portion. 

I have read actual research regarding free will, however none have proposed a mechanism for consciousness. Thus in light of the lack of scientific knowledge, determinism remains a very philosophical debate.


----------



## DarkEpiphany (Sep 16, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> And yet here you are obsessed with following every thread I make in multiple forums argueing with me. :roll Somehow I'm the one who is "wrong" when you're the one who thinks I'm talking about *ATHEISM* in this thread?!?!?! If you think I'm not good at philosophy/science, you must have failed reading comprehension.


I've seen some of your other posts and it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to figure you likely favor creationist theory.


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

Science is based off observations from reality.

Anyway, I am free to think whatever I want.


----------

