Fate vs. Free Will

[xBlackFlash]

I got into a discussion with one of my Prof's about this. What he was saying is that it's best to stay in the middle, and that being completely on either side is 'dangerous.' Like, if you believe only in Fate, you don't need to work at anything because if it's meant to be, it will happen. Or if you believe only in free will you don't believe in any type of higher power, and the way you conduct yourself is dictated only by what you can get away with.

That's the best way I could explain it. It seemed really shaky, but I was curious what side (if any) you guys fell on.

[Narsil]

There is no fate other than the eventuality of death. Other than that, your life is yours to live.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I think that we have functional, but not actual free will.
What we do is ultimatly decided by complex sets of deterministic chemical reactions, but there are so many that we essentially have a form of free will, under constraints of course. We cant turn emotions on and off, etc etc

[Charon]

Kind of like what CT is saying is what I believe. People are hardwired to act in a certain way according to stimuli. Mind you with some effort you can adjust and react differently but even then another set of triggers will be activated into you acting that certain way in opposition to the more common way.

In short I don't think that we are destined to do things. But there are many paths, some of which far more well travelled than others.

[Surlethe]

Free will. I'm Catholic, BTW.

[The Silence and I]

Sort of a fated free will if that makes sense.

Take Bob: He is "normal" (whatever that means...) his life experiences and genetic structure have conspired to wire his brain into its current pattern of neural connections, which are fairly rigid, but they do have the potential to change. In his current condition his brain will react to stimulus in a largely predictable pattern--his brain structure dictates his choices in response to his world. In short he is destined to act a certain way in reponse to stimulus, he is in a sense fated.

However his brain is flexible, and it is possible for Bob to decide to change his neural structure--make a concious decision to change his behavior--and while difficult it is possible to make lasting changes to this structure. If Bob carries through with this then it may be said he has replaced his old fate with a new one; he still responds according to his brain wiring, but he has changed the wiring, he has changed his fate.

Of course doing so is not only hard, it will most likely never occur to Bob, and so he will probably join the ranks of people who never get around to improving their lives because it never occurs to them how.

I believe that the vast majority of what people do and say is automatic, it is all down to wiring, experience, pattern recognition and the like. Ever watch a foreign film with the captions instead of the dub? Try it sometime, you might notice how obviously like monkeys people act. Since you cannot understand the words you have more attention to spare on the body motions--there is a vast amount of information transmitted through subconcious body movements, and this information is no more sophisticated than you see in a tribe of chimpanzees or other great apes. If we are so intelligent and so in charge of our thoughts and actions why do we send out so much information automatically, without thought? Indeed most of us cannot not send that information. I believe unique thoughts/actions happen, but rarely, and it takes such a thought to really make a change in your life. Most of the time people are just extremely complicated robots going through motions. They have been programmed by their experiences and their genes and they don't often become more than the sum of their parts.

Some people might object to the above. I am ok with that, partly because I may truely be wrong and I am willing to learn. Partly because it is easy to say your program objects to being called a program

SO yeah, you can have free will, but most of us don't use it most of the time, some of us never do.

[Robert Walper]

The problem I see above Silence is that events and conditions for a person's life are not dictated solely by their actions. The weather, for example, has no free will, yet can dictate the course of life (and death) of entire populations of free thinking beings.

In regards to free will, as I interpret the concept, it's undeniable. Free will is simply the ability to choose one of multiple 'paths' in any given situation.

[Comrade Tortoise]

The problem I see above Silence is that events and conditions for a person's life are not dictated solely by their actions. The weather, for example, has no free will, yet can dictate the course of life (and death) of entire populations of free thinking beings.

I fail to see how that is even relevant to this discussion

[The Silence and I]

The problem I see above Silence is that events and conditions for a person's life are not dictated solely by their actions.

I don't think I implied this, but if I did it was a mistake. The events and conditions of your life help shape your neural make up, they are part of the environment that you live in.

The weather, for example, has no free will, yet can dictate the course of life (and death) of entire populations of free thinking beings.

...right... *tries to comprehend the point as it applies to my post, fails*

In regards to free will, as I interpret the concept, it's undeniable. Free will is simply the ability to choose one of multiple 'paths' in any given situation.

I agree, you have the ability to choose your path; however I argue most people, most of the time, do not. They may think they have made a choice, but really their 'choice' is made for them by the sum of their experiences. They really exercise no choice at all since no genuine thought is involved. Bob's history of failure and hard luck and other details of his life conspire to make Bob very leery of taking chances, even reasonable ones offering great pay offs. He will most likely always refuse to take more chances (after some point, he probably had to learn dissapointment at some point) regardless of the odds or the wisdom. He will have little trouble rationalizing his 'choice' but frankly I think Bob is largely incapable of 'choosing' anything other than the safest, most comfortable road.

You could say he has exercised free will and made a choice to stay the way he is and constrain himself to his fate (of the sort I mentioned in my past post) and I would agree. He is still fated though, even if he used free will to get there. (Hey, I did mention it is a fated free will!)

[Charon]

I believe what Walper was attempting to say is that even if we know how a person will react to certain stimuli, we are unsure of what stimuli they will encounter in a world as random as this.

[Robert Walper]

I believe what Walper was attempting to say is that even if we know how a person will react to certain stimuli, we are unsure of what stimuli they will encounter in a world as random as this.

Precisely. In a controlled enviroment or one where all (or that vast majority) of the variables are accounted for, predictions become valid and one might subscribe to 'fate'. In the context of holding a fragile glass plate ten feet above the ground, with a specific time to drop it, it's 'fate' persay seems given and readily predictable. But even that simple example isn't necessarily true...the plate might in fact not break.

Thus, 'fate' seems as close to impossible as one can get in regards to sentient species who think, since decisions can be affected by something as unpredictable and trivial as emotional state and mood. Nevermind the outside world's virtually unlimited capacity to influence said person.

And such stimuli can be extraordinarily tiny segments of information that dictates a person's choice. For example, a hijacked aircraft pilot might chose to crash his plane rather than allow it's hijackers to kill thousands of innocents. Or he/she might chose not to if given reason to just think that possibility is rather small.

Then you get into situations where a person may not have considered all possibilities and information (despite having knowledge of them), even though it is easily within their grasp and thus make a unpredicted decision or action. Just as simple as forgetting or oversight.

I daresay that 'fate' strikes me as outright impossible, since even the most farfetched or advanced prediction system cannot work, by virtue it exists within and influences the very system it's trying to model.

Edit: I guess the best way to put it is this: I see all potential events and actions as probability. If put on a graph, the probability of any given event or action curves upwards towards 100%, but never reaches 100% until the event or action actually takes place. Fate is starting with 100% probability and the assertion events will unfold to reach it.

[The Silence and I]

I believe what Walper was attempting to say is that even if we know how a person will react to certain stimuli, we are unsure of what stimuli they will encounter in a world as random as this.

I got that, I don't get how that applies to my post.

Let me try again (I'm nothing if not unclear when posting ;) )...

Reacting the same way every time to a given stimulus = 'fate' as I'm using the word.

The fact that the stimulus is random allows us to think people are much more random than I think they are, but it does not change how I use 'fate.'

Even so, we can change the way we react to stimulus--this ability to change our personality is the only free will I think we have.


An example for you that might illuminate my hazy, overcast point: You have a complex computer algorithm, it can respond to hundreds or even thousands of situations accounted for in its program. Each response is repeatable--it is an algorithm after all. I say this means the algorithm is fated to follow its rigid programming, even if the stimulus it reacts to is random. Obviously the life path of this algorithm cannot be predicted--it is not fated to make a given answer at precisely 3:41 am on the second Tuesday of a blue moon month in 2007, but it is fated to give its answers according to its complex program.

Obviously (I hope--I am a foggy sky to read) the above is a person's mind as I view it.

The difference between a real person and the algorithm is the human has the free will needed to alter the program, change its algorithm. The human, every now and then, can rise above his or her programming, be more than the sum of his or her components, and actually have an original thought that is not a product of stimulus filtered through a complex program. Maybe the person will use this original thought to come up with the theory of relativity, maybe the thought will inspire the person make the personal changes needed to improve their life, whatever. Such original thoughts happen all the time, but are probably ignored mostly.

Any more clear?

[The Silence and I]

I daresay that 'fate' strikes me as outright impossible, since even the most farfetched or advanced prediction system cannot work, by virtue it exists within and influences the very system it's trying to model.

Edit: I guess the best way to put it is this: I see all potential events and actions as probability. If put on a graph, the probability of any given event or action curves upwards towards 100%, but never reaches 100% until the event or action actually takes place. Fate is starting with 100% probability and the assertion events will unfold to reach it.

As far as this goes I agree. The stimulus we react to cannot be fated if quantum physics is to be believed--me dropping a marble effects in some way every other interaction in the entire universe, and nothing can be measured to the precision needed to eliminated a healthy amount of chaos and randomness.

[Robert Walper]

I believe what Walper was attempting to say is that even if we know how a person will react to certain stimuli, we are unsure of what stimuli they will encounter in a world as random as this.

I got that, I don't get how that applies to my post.

Let me try again (I'm nothing if not unclear when posting ;) )...

Probably my end Silence. I have no illusions about never misinterpreting other's posts, or perhaps reading them too quickly and missing the point.

Reacting the same way every time to a given stimulus = 'fate' as I'm using the word.

The fact that the stimulus is random allows us to think people are much more random than I think they are, but it does not change how I use 'fate.'

Even so, we can change the way we react to stimulus--this ability to change our personality is the only free will I think we have.


An example for you that might illuminate my hazy, overcast point: You have a complex computer algorithm, it can respond to hundreds or even thousands of situations accounted for in its program. Each response is repeatable--it is an algorithm after all. I say this means the algorithm is fated to follow its rigid programming, even if the stimulus it reacts to is random. Obviously the life path of this algorithm cannot be predicted--it is not fated to make a given answer at precisely 3:41 am on the second Tuesday of a blue moon month in 2007, but it is fated to give its answers according to its complex program.

Obviously (I hope--I am a foggy sky to read) the above is a person's mind as I view it.

The difference between a real person and the algorithm is the human has the free will needed to alter the program, change its algorithm. The human, every now and then, can rise above his or her programming, be more than the sum of his or her components, and actually have an original thought that is not a product of stimulus filtered through a complex program. Maybe the person will use this original thought to come up with the theory of relativity, maybe the thought will inspire the person make the personal changes needed to improve their life, whatever. Such original thoughts happen all the time, but are probably ignored mostly.

Any more clear?

As I understand you Silence, you're suggesting humans are much like hardware, with programming that the majority of time dictates their behavior. I agree with that. Things like instincts, socializing behavior, reflexes and etc come to mind. Such behavior is usually hardwired into living creatures of all sorts.

I suppose it's a matter of the 'higher up' programming I'm talking about, such as making educated (or uneducated) choices based upon personal traits. Personal traits (such as taste in clothing) are more dictated by outside influences and experience, rather than any default programming. No person is the same, because no person is ever subjected to identical outside input. For example predicting a person's reaction to being burned is easy in comparison to predicting their choice of floor carpet.

So in essence I agree we do have default programming people use all the time. However, no person has the same program because of a lifetime of different input and saving, which is unpredictable. Throw in your suggestion that default or learned programming can be overcome by "force of will", and to me that rules out any concept of 'fate' (as I generally interpret it's meaning).

[The Silence and I]

Sounds like we are in agreement then, the details are not so important to me anyway

[Delasaer Chval]

Hmm. I think about this a lot, and I have no one to really discuss it with, so I'm lucky I found this thread.

Well, I think that we have Free Will up to a point. I say that each choice we make is our own decision, but then Fate takes its course and leads you along until you have to make a choice again. This makes most sense to me, because sometimes you choose to do something, but it doesn't turn out quite right, and you just end up getting swept away by the events. Now, I'm not very religious, so don't start countering my thoughts with all this Religious stuff, because it's very likely for me not to get it (My family is Christian, and even though I celebrate a lot of holidays like Christmas, Easter, St. George's Day, I'm not overly into it. I haven't read one sentance of the bible).

-Nell.

[Batman]

Necroing=BAD!

[Charon]

He made a contributing post to a thread on a part of this forum that doesn't even have a second page of threads yet. So I have little problem with it. However Delasaer, for future reference, necroing a three month dead thread is bad no matter how contributing a post is.

[Scottish Ninja]

I wouldn't worry about it that much either; if it's on the first page one doesn't often bother reading the date.

[frigidmagi]

Getting back the subject, Free Will does not invalidate a belief in a God, gods, or other such force or whatever.

I believe in Free Will. Life is a series of choices you must make, refusing to chose is in of and itself a choice. The result of your choice is yet another range of choices that you must make.

There are things that influence the choices you make. Your beliefs, your race or sex, even your hieght can influence you. But none of this makes your choice pre-determined, in the end it's just you. Why do I say this, because many humans have repeatly throughout history thrown off their beliefs for new ones, made decisions not their best self interest and so on.

I will admit, not everyone gets the same choices. Some of us just get crappy hands, that's way life is, call it fate, the world or whatever.

[SirNitram]

Free Will exists, in my view, and thus I implicitly beleive in branching time and disbeleive in omniscience.

I can resolve the idea of Fate and Free Will, and usually do in my writings. Fate is the inertia of reality; you can fight it and change things, but it's hard to find the right moment when the push will shove it down a new dent in the carpet.