A lot of my inspiration for these conversation topics come from WNYC's Radiolab and this one is no exception. In the episode Loops they describe the condition Transient Global Amnesia, which is something I had never heard of. If I understand it correctly it is the temporary loss of your ability to form short term memories. Yeah, you heard that right, as in, you don't remember what just happened. Interestingly doctors do not know what causes it or how long it lasts, usually less than a day, or for that matter how to fix it.

Well, if you listen to the podcast a daughter and mother pair sit down after the mother is diagnosed and has a conversation that literally resets every 90 seconds. She starts by asking what day it is, then is surprised that she has missed her birthday, the conversation turns to her trying to recall her last memory, the daughter tells her the story of how she ended up here, and the next question is what day is it? What struck me is not only is the flow of the questions nearly identical every single time, but the way she says things is the same. Every time she laughs the same, she says "darn" the same way every time she realizes she missed her birthday, it's SUPER creepy.

So where am I going with this? Free will. I've always tried to explain to people that in the right conditions humans don't exhibit free will at all. You study it in consumer behavior class, but basically the reality is in the above example it shows that humans can be 100% predictable. Faced with the same set of variables the woman replies with the exact same answers every, single, time. Since she has no short term memory it is the only time that I have ever been able to cite something as a specific example of this phenomena.

This leaves us with a heavy question: There are basically 3 main paths you can pick on the debate on free will. 1) We don't have any free will. If we knew all the variables we could accurately predict behavior with 100% accuracy from birth to death. 2) We have complete free will and our decisions are inherently unpredictable. 3) We have some kind of mix of free will, where our moment to moment decisions are predictable but taken as a whole we are unpredictable. In this example a second key question arises, where is that dividing line between what makes us predictable and what makes us unpredictable?

So that's it guys: Do we have free will? Is the above series of events definitive proof that, at least to some degree, that we do not? Listen to the podcast yourself from about 7:30 ~ 15:00. http://www.radiolab.org/2011/oct/04/

I know if you reply it will be because you have no free will to resist! Or is it because you have free will to not listen to my jibes? Mysterious.






Words from The Fool:

I'm certainly not the first fool philosopher to discuss this topic. Mostly it ties into religion, which I tend to avoid talking about because people get a little upset over it, occasionally ending in theological genocide. I'll say this though, while the religious minds of today seem to be focused on the idea that we DO have free will it was not always this way. At the dawn of the age of reason people like Laplace and Luther had a great number of followers that believed that their lives were pre-determined. While modern quantum theory has rendered these arguments more confusing than ever, one thing is for certain, there's no easy answer to be found. No fooling

I would say, it doesn't matter.
What does it matter if someone or something can predict every step you make?
If it is not possible to predict anything in the world to 100% accuracy, then you could say you have free will.
If there is something that can predicit the future(bottom line) with 100% accuracy, it doesn't matter as long as you can't predict yourself.
That woman couldn't predict herself, she feels she has free will just like any other person.
So why do you care if something can predict what you will do?
You can't predict yourself, that's enough to make you feel like you have a free will.

I'm taking this from a biological perspective as that's my background:

I think its incorrect to claim we can predict behavior 100% of the time for everyone. Even though one can predict a behavior, that doesn't mean all people will follow through. You see it happen in science all the time: no matter what you predict, you'll have outliers that don't match at all. What science gets at is the average common behavior, not an absolute.

Also, it's inherently impossible (at this time) to account for all variables because we simply aren't knowledgeable enough about how genetics, environment, etc. affect the individual. For example, we constantly talk about predictions of so-and-so gene gives one a XXX likelyhood to develop yyy condition. Can we predict exactly which one the person will develop? no.

As for free will: if you're going by a very strict definition that free will = you control all your behaviors independent of other sources, free will is fake. Studies show that your environment, as well as your genetics, can play a powerful role in shaping your behavior.

You guys are killjoys

The point of any philosophical question isn't about what we currently know or what actually matters. They're exercises for your brain to think beyond the scope of the immediate, right?

So sure, it won't make a difference what the answer is. Neither will that whole "Does (your) god exist" question that people kill each other over. Catch my drift?

So, you've gotta take this from the standpoint of not what is possible now but what is theoretically possible. In my example there are clear evidence that, in an environment without much variation, response is the same. Whether that is free will or not is yet a mystery

I'll give you guys another take: Quantum theory says that the universe is even less predictable than previously thought. To paraphrase: Nature is more a cloud than a clock.

This of course suggests a greater chance of free thinking. Still, I can't help but think after listening to this that man is more machine than we want to believe.

Maybe with a few deus ex machina (Ghost in the machine), but still a machine

Continue with your negativity if you must, thanks for replying!

'scuse me if you're all through thinking about this interesting topic...but, setting aside science, philosophy, and religion, and coming at your question from a purely English-language, logical perspective: y'all are talking about two different things. "Free will vs. no free will" is not at all the same as "predictable vs. unpredictable." My driving to work via a predictable route does not have anything to do with whether or not I have free will.

An interesting point, but then - what is free will if not predictability? Please define it as you see it

-Fool

I think we have complete free will. Just because it could be predicted didn't mean we didn't make that choice ourselves. We could have gone the other way, but we didn't. Whether anyone predicted that is completely irrelevant. It doesn't even matter why we chose whatever it is that we chose -- we still chose it of our own will. Even if an entire person's life could be predicted entirely, then they still made those choices. The prediction didn't make them for them.