does "free will" actually exist?

[Pharaoh Cat]

It's only when you get into an argument of "fatalism" that I think we move into "no free will" territory. Fatalism implies a "mover" or that there is an unconscious direction that everything we do moves us towards. Like Oedipus (or the stupid "final destination" movies) nothing we do can stop our "fates". It's less about cause = effect and more about action = destiny.

If fatalism implies something like Aristotle's First Cause, the notion of a teleological universe, then I am not at all a fatalist.  Nature as a whole has no intentionality as far as I can tell.  Only individual creatures have intentionality, to the best of my knowledge.

Personally, I loathe the idea of fatalism because it strikes me as completely ego-centric. I don't think the universe gives a flying fig about what happens to any of us.

The universe could be teleological and still be indifferent to individuals.  We could all be threads in a tapestry, and the tapestry could be all the Weaver cares about, hence the willingness to cut the threads.  If I believed in a Puppeteer, it would be one who has no qualms about subjecting its puppets to any torture for the sake of the show.  This is the God of the Deists in my view, if we grant that God omniscience and intention.  Such a God would have predicted, and thus purposefully caused, any and every horror you could name from history, all for the sake of its art.

Someday a human art museum will have an exhibit consisting of a terrarium with an anthill in it, plus a gadget that repeatedly torments the ants with some sprayed chemical they hate but which doesn't immediately kill them.  The title of that exhibit will be, "God."

[The Magic Pudding]

Someday a human art museum will have an exhibit consisting of a terrarium with an anthill in it, plus a gadget that repeatedly torments the ants with some sprayed chemical they hate but which doesn't immediately kill them.  The title of that exhibit will be, "God."

Perhaps we should invite interpretations of this.

How about an idyllic green field with a lovely stream flowing through, a person seated at a table in the middle of the field with their head stuck in a diorama, at their eye level we have a representation of hell, if they strain to look upwards they can glimpse a shiny man and light.

[Pharaoh Cat]

How about an idyllic green field with a lovely stream flowing through, a person seated at a table in the middle of the field with their head stuck in a diorama, at their eye level we have a representation of hell, if they strain to look upwards they can glimpse a shiny man and light.

Is the idyllic green field real life, and the head-stuck person a believer, oblivious to the idylls of green due to the imposition of the diorama, which represents faith?

If so, and if I were the artist, the green fields would have luscious fruits, singing birds, and a rolling stream - and on some of the fruits, blight; running from some of the birds, mice; and in the stream, someone drowning.

[The Magic Pudding]

How about an idyllic green field with a lovely stream flowing through, a person seated at a table in the middle of the field with their head stuck in a diorama, at their eye level we have a representation of hell, if they strain to look upwards they can glimpse a shiny man and light.

Is the idyllic green field real life, and the head-stuck person a believer, oblivious to the idylls of green due to the imposition of the diorama, which represents faith?

If so, and if I were the artist, the green fields would have luscious fruits, singing birds, and a rolling stream - and on some of the fruits, blight; running from some of the birds, mice; and in the stream, someone drowning.

Yes yes, you have my intent.

The trouble with a classicist he looks at a tree
That's all he sees, he paints a tree
The trouble with a classicist he looks at the sky
He doesn't ask why, he just paints a sky
The trouble with an impressionist, he looks at a log
And he doesn't know who he is, standing, staring, at this log
And surrealist memories are too amorphous and proud
While those downtown macho painters are just alcoholic

There's a problem with realists as well, they are bothersomely honest.

[Davin]

I don't really focus too much on if reality is deterministic or not because at the end of the day we'd all still act as if it were not....it's just something that can be interesting to discuss from an academic point of view.

I really don't find it all that interesting. The conversation is rather short, unless one wants to argue about whether it's true or not, but even that gets old quickly. The position is currently as unfalsifiable as a god, so I don't bother.

If there is some variant of "free will", then I will act as I please, if it's determined, then I have no choice in how I act. There really is no quantafiable difference between the two.

[Light]

No such thing as free will.
We do make choices but they are based on many things, physical makeup, upbringing, culture, teachings, dietary intake.

If you could create the exact same conditions, likely the same decision would be made.

Free will supposes a soul detached from all of the physicality but somehow floating around, following a particular life system. It would suggest that a different soul within the same life system, same situation, would make different choices, because that soul is more good or more bad than other souls hence it is likely to make the wrong or right choice and then god will judge it.

1. I have no belief in gods
2. I have no belief in morality (good, bad)
3. I have no belief in soul
4. I have no belief in free will

You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.

[Asmodean]

You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.

OR, "I" could refer to the sack of bones and other things which probably taste good once roasted long enough.

You don't need to make "you" more complicated than the body and electrical and chemical processes therein.

[Light]

You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.

You don't need to make "you" more complicated than the body and electrical and chemical processes therein.

Then why do you keep doing so yourself?  Why keep referencing such immaterial things like "I" if they're just illusions.  Why not say 'my brain did this, my brain did that"  'Brain' says this. 

[xSilverPhinx]

Apparently "I" really is an illusion. "I" would be more like a "we". The brain is modular.

[Asmodean]

Then why do you keep doing so yourself?  Why keep referencing such immaterial things like "I" if they're just illusions.  Why not say 'my brain did this, my brain did that"  'Brain' says this.  

The above is pretty much idiotic.

Your brain does not pour coffee in your cup - it commands other subsystems to do that. When I say "I'm going for a fag", I mean the body - arms, legs, heads - the whole thing, and everything it contains is about to move from one location to another in order to inhale some nicotine fumes.

"I" is a bit more than a brain, since I am composed of several systems. The Pereption of "I", however, is generated in and by the brain.

[Light]

Ok.  So you simply observe your body doing things, and "I" is a reference to your body.  You have no active role in controlling it.  Is that what you're saying?

[Asmodean]

You have no active role in controlling it.  Is that what you're saying?

No. That is not at all what I am saying.

"I" AM the bloody body. Of course I can ontrol what it does. I'm it. It's me. We are one and the same.

[Crow]

Ok.  So you simply observe your body doing things, and "I" is a reference to your body.  You have no active role in controlling it.  Is that what you're saying?

[Light]

You have no active role in controlling it.  Is that what you're saying?

No. That is not at all what I am saying.

"I" AM the bloody body. Of course I can ontrol what it does. I'm it. It's me. We are one and the same.

Ok.  But if your body is composed of atoms and molecules, such as neurons are, and that matter functions according to the laws of physics, then wouldn't the laws of physics control your body?

And if they don't , then you're admitting there's something within your body which is exempt from the cause-effect laws of physics.  How could that be?  Unless, it was something immaterial?

[Asmodean]

Ok.  But if your body is composed of atoms and molecules, such as neurons are, and that matter functions according to the laws of physics, then wouldn't the laws of physics control your body?

No. Laws of physics explain in what ways matter and energy behave. The laws themselves do not govern matter. The misunderstanding aside, yes, I am very much a subject to physical laws. Otherwise, I'd most certainly ignore gravity and beome invisible on ocasion.

And if they don't , then you're admitting there's something within your body which is exempt from the cause-effect laws of physics.  How could that be?  Unless, it was something immaterial?

I think the above answers it well, if in few words. Not bored enough to write a wall of text this evening.