A question of free will

[Markdude]

The real question is...was it free will that compelled Nick H to spend all his money on Madisons, or was he predisposed to be a tool?

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Hegmatronicon

Im not arguing one way or the other.

I'm mainly responding to this:

By saying "people dont CHOOSE to be addicted to something by free will. It's not something they have control over because it's not a choice. Free will existing or not is beside the point. if it DOES exist - it would allow us to make any CHOICE we wanted to - addiction isnt a choice - therefore i dont believe free will applies.

Thats all i am trying (not doing a good job of articulating tho) to say.

 

i see.

the issue with your argument is that it only serves to prove that there is no free will. that's what we're talking about here...using addiction as an example was just that, an example of something to which free will clearly does not apply...thereby negating free will.

i think we're saying the same things, just with a different end goal

[Nick H]

 

Originally Posted by TurboRotary13b

So you believe in free will with limitations?

 

Free will within limitations.

There must in some form or another be a reason for ones actions, however one can control what reasons he/she takes into account (or how heavily they are weighed) when deciding to take action.

[Hegmatronicon]

Maybe.

Altho i think free will can only apply to choices that we make.

Addiciton not being a choice - i dont really believe you can use it as an argument one way or the other.

But who am I to make that call! haha

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

i see.

the issue with your argument is that it only serves to prove that there is no free will. that's what we're talking about here...using addiction as an example was just that, an example of something to which free will clearly does not apply...thereby negating free will.

i think we're saying the same things, just with a different end goal

 

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Hegmatronicon

Maybe.

Altho i think free will can only apply to choices that we make.

Addiciton not being a choice - i dont really believe you can use it as an argument one way or the other.

But who am I to make that call! haha

 

so, you're saying that going through the physical act of putting a foreign substance into your body doesn't involve choice?

there's choice all the way...first, you have to decide that you need to get some. then you have to decide to get some. then you decide that you need to use some, but you have to decide how much. if there's paraphernalia required, you have to decide to get that.

quite simply, your body doesn't move until your brain makes the choice to do so. if there were actually free will, there wouldn't be addiction because you could choose to NOT engage in any of the behaviors required to acquire and ingest a substance.

the alternative view is free will with limitations, but that isn't really free will...if you had free will, you could choose for it to exceed those limitations. and on and on.

[Hegmatronicon]

No no. People absolutely choose to do it in the first place. THAT's almost proof of free will - i mean - you can choose NOT to do it - but you chose to start smoking, or drinking, or shooting up etc etc.

BUT - once addicted - i think free will takes a back seat because you can CHOOSE to quit - but the actual process of quitting can prove VERY difficult - and it doesnt rely on simply making a choice.

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

so, you're saying that going through the physical act of putting a foreign substance into your body doesn't involve choice?

there's choice all the way...first, you have to decide that you need to get some. then you have to decide to get some. then you decide that you need to use some, but you have to decide how much. if there's paraphernalia required, you have to decide to get that.

quite simply, your body doesn't move until your brain makes the choice to do so. if there were actually free will, there wouldn't be addiction because you could choose to NOT engage in any of the behaviors required to acquire and ingest a substance.

the alternative view is free will with limitations, but that isn't really free will...if you had free will, you could choose for it to exceed those limitations. and on and on.

 

[Hegmatronicon]

Put simply - you arent addicted to something before you start taking it.

IE - back in the day - ppl didnt know smoking was addictive.

Once hooked - choice is (somewhat) removed from the equation.

Free will to start - not always to stop.

[Hegmatronicon]

Another example - morphine addicitons from ppl who have undergone surgery.

They get addicted to morphine through no choice they have made.

[TurboRotary13b]

If I hold a gun to someone's head and force them to do 20 push ups have they done these push ups under their own free will?

[Hegmatronicon]

 

Originally Posted by TurboRotary13b

If I hold a gun to someone's head and force them to do 20 push ups have they done these push ups under their own free will?

 

It depends how you define free will.

Some define it as the ability to make decisions free from constraints. Some define those constraints as things such as imprisonment or fear of death etc.

others define it as freedom from fear of persecution or punishment.

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Hegmatronicon

Another example - morphine addicitons from ppl who have undergone surgery.

They get addicted to morphine through no choice they have made.

 

they also choose not to take the steps necessary to recover (treatment, etc). you have to choose to continue using a substance, end of story.

once again: if there were free will, there wouldn't be addiction. if you can refute that, or explain why it is that you feel that free will gets a pass in the case of addiction, i'm all ears.

[Hegmatronicon]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

they also choose not to take the steps necessary to recover (treatment, etc). you have to choose to continue using a substance, end of story.

 

Never been close to someone who's addicted to something (not cigs) i assume?

In a black and White universe - i guess that's true.

But there are many other factors such as what the actual drug does to your perception of reality in general etc

[TurboRotary13b]

Ok lets break this down.. What is will? It is a desire right? One desire is equal to another as we can choose to act on it or ignore it.. What we cannot control is the action of desire itself... In other words we cannot control our will. It is natural to us. So while we can decide how the will manifests itself once it arrives the wills arrival is uncontrollable. If you cant even control the arrival of will you don't have free will because once the will is there you are forced into a decision.

[NinjaRaf]

If we look at other animals (because we ARE animals, and there is still some degree of instinct left in our brains, no matter how much we would like to think otherwise), they dont really make decisions...they just DO things based on instinct. They do not really have free will. We have the ability to use logic and reason and to go against our instincts. If we were simply instinctual beings, yes, free will is only an idea that isnt really anything. However, since we do have the ability to go against instinct, I think that means we have the ability to make decisions based on things that may not necessarily be the best or most rewarding, chemically speaking. To me, that suggests free will.

[Ron Burgandy]

So if we don't have free will and this is all predetermined, having this knowledge won't change anything.

If not, this is pointless banter on a message board.

It's not a power to harness either way.

[wok]

In before tl/dr by Draelyc

[wok]

In before tl/dr by Draelyc

["sasquatch"]

everything in life is black or white; no grey.

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Hegmatronicon

Never been close to someone who's addicted to something (not cigs) i assume?

In a black and White universe - i guess that's true.

But there are many other factors such as what the actual drug does to your perception of reality in general etc

 

yes, i have.

"many other factors" is a cop out for the addict, excusing their behavior. the bottom line is that they CHOOSE to continue to use just as they do not choose to stop.

you can't have it both ways...if the addict makes a choice to get help, they must also make a choice NOT to.

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

So if we don't have free will and this is all predetermined, having this knowledge won't change anything.

If not, this is pointless banter on a message board.

It's not a power to harness either way.

 

it's not necessarily an issue of something being predetermined, as that implies that there is a "determiner". this whole thing is really all about truth, and how little control we actually have.

if truth and the knowledge that control is an illusion aren't powers to harness, name some for me.

[Ron Burgandy]

I stopped smoking after 17 years. I have no desire to restart as they're nasty to me. I feel I broke the addiction. I have no cravings or really any memory of what it was like.

[guitarbilly74]

there are certain things that are really predetermined/not subject to free will, while other things are entirely up to you. I guess the key is to understand what can and cannot be changed and do your best to work with the deck of cards you were dealt.

[knucklefux]

once again, addiction was just an example that has derailed the thread.

IF you were physically addicted to smoking, and you found yourself doing it (smashed at a party, maybe?) i suspect that you would have a hard time stopping again. that's the nature of addiction.

but none of this has any bearing on the conversation.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

once again, addiction was just an example that has derailed the thread.

IF you were physically addicted to smoking, and you found yourself doing it (smashed at a party, maybe?) i suspect that you would have a hard time stopping again. that's the nature of addiction.

but none of this has any bearing on the conversation.

 

I have found myself there and after one I didn't want anymore.

Anyway back on point...

So if everything is predetermined this knowledge was meant to be obtained as well as anything that can be done with said knowledge. It doesn't change anything.

If the theory is not correct, it's meaningless.

What benefit do we have by knowing this?

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

once again, addiction was just an example that has derailed the thread.

IF you were physically addicted to smoking, and you found yourself doing it (smashed at a party, maybe?) i suspect that you would have a hard time stopping again. that's the nature of addiction.

but none of this has any bearing on the conversation.

 

I have found myself there and after one I didn't want anymore.

Anyway back on point...

So if everything is predetermined this knowledge was meant to be obtained as well as anything that can be done with said knowledge. It doesn't change anything.

If the theory is not correct, it's meaningless.

What benefit do we have by knowing this?

[Rear Naked]

I don't believe in free will.

Overdriven, such determinism doesn't exist in physics.