Fate?
 

I have been throwing a lot of cold water on threads in my time here (sorry about that, but its been necessary at times) so I thought I would throw out a thread topic that is near to my heart and let someone else take a turn. What do you believe in, Fate or Free Will. Before you answer, consider the following:

-Is it possible to believe in free will and cause/effect at the same time?

-Can you empirically prove your stance on the issue either way?

-If yes to fate: What impact would it have if every person in America (let’s say) decided that there was no free will? What would that do to concepts like “justice” or “rights”?

-If yes to free will: What is your response to current research being done in nuero-psychology that suggests you form a rational after you make your decision?

-If you are sitting on the fence (ie “its both"): how can you reconcile the two ideas? How do you make them not mutually exclusive?

And yes, I have considered that this has not really bearing on your, my or anyone else’s day to day life. This is just for fun after all.

Its all pretty much cause and effect, hit bat with ball and ball goes flying. Humans are full of themselves and refuse to see the fact that they act to stimuli in the exact same way that other animals and even the basic building blocks of matter behave. If its cold, we find someplace warm, insects flee, birds migrate, things that can move quickly enough to escape the cold do, those that cant find a warm hole in the ground or die.....and did you know that once the temperature on observed atoms approaches absolute zero, all the subatomic particles line up and MOVE AWAY from the source of the low temperature. Everyone knows that when atoms get excited((hot)) they have more energy and move more freely and at extreme temperatures the subatomic particles have enough energy to break their bonds to the atom((nuclear reactioni)), when people get hot, they tend to move around a lot more, everytime the shade moves, they move, when particles have excess energy, they move to somewhere with low energy.

And molecules respond in much similar ways to atoms, except the reaction is more complex, and many molecules together respond simularly to single molecules, except it gets so complex that we finally start to perceive it as behavior((virus', DNA strands)) even more complex still but behavior wise similar to the group before them are single cells, which we recognize as life!

We are no more than the sum of our parts. Its just that we have so many seperate parts that are made up of so many seperate parts that each part has many ways it can react to many different stimuli and we call that behavior of more complex animals and humans....if we can finally crack atoms, and then molecules...we can gradually crack how a persons brain will react to things ((Although that would be so inconcievably difficult that it will probably always remain a theory))

However, I believe that there is one major difference between humans and animals. When any situation arises, the animal's basic thought is:
"How can I get through this and not die?"
With a human, it is:
"How can I get through this and have as much fun as possible?"

The difference is humans don't HAVE to. When it rains an animal will either, depending on species, run out into the rain and use it as hunting time, or go and hide. A human can decide whether they like rain. Most humans don't like it... I happen to like it about half the time... sometimes I'll stop and look up into the rain (which being in minnesota is mostly very very cold), or I may run inside because I'm just not in the mood for it right now. Humans can also choose not to eat, lots of religions endorse fasting... an animal can not choose not to eat. An animal only doesn't eat if it can not find food, or, in the case of house pets with a constant supply of food, they are not hungry. Animals don't DECIDE that they don't want to eat. They just aren't hungry or can't find food. A human can commit suicide... going against the most basic instincts of all life. A human can, even when starving, decide to split their food and/or water with someone else. Humans may even decide to go into the cold. Just look at the polar bear club. And maybe YOU move a lot when it's hot... I just vegetate someplace. Humans don't always follow the rules of atomic motion that you're trying to prove, because they don't have to.


Edit: I think this is still on topic. If we react merely because of the laws of physics directing each and every decision we make, then we have no free will.

Shoot Krylo already said what I wanted to say.
I belive everything has free will but some are just too dumb or instinct driven. There was more I wanted too say but its getting too late to think. Spiffy Has Spoken.

if you want to get all wacky and calvinistic: if there's a god, then there is no free will, and he creates people to go to hell or heaven at his own leisure (gasp), since he is omnipotent and can predict every action taken by everything. thus no matter how much you try, or don't try, you'll never be able to escape the fate made by him.

wackier still... does that mean that god is the only one with free will? if so, then does that mean that true free will is always accompanied by a perfect lack of limitations?

wacky :fighter:

oh, and about krylo's animal thingy.. not all animals will obey insticts as perfectly as it seems. there's a lot of documentation about animals not eating because.. get this.. because they were sad.

that's like the wackiest thing ever.

Well, I suppose that means animals also have free will. Which really supports Spiffy in that all things have free will... some just aren't bright enough to exercise it.

Of course... we should look at it from a philosophical stand point. Do we really decide, or are all of our decisions, even those that go against instinct, predetermined? In calvanism not even god can have free will if you believe in a perfectly benevolent god... after all, if god can only choose to do good, then how can god have free will? Of course, that is starting to tread pretty close to a religious discussion... so we should probably steer it away from that, and just ask if time moves along a straight line, in which all things are predetermined... or can we change the line of time... fate... or whatever else you want to call it?

but in calvinism, god isn't good or evil, he's pretty much indifferent and totally uses us as pawns.. its pretty weird.

Thats what i was trying to say, The human mind is definately much more complex, but it still responds to stimuli, sure it may be complicated, but the "will" to not eat does come from something, happy or undisciplined people WILL eat.....if you are unhappy or got a learned behavior to only eat at certain times, you may not, it however still falls under cause and effect

Or you could just up and choose not to eat. Try it. Decide "Today, I'm not going to eat." I did that once... actually I was trying to do a vegetarian weekend at the behest of a spiritual type friend... but forgot to shop so... um... rather than go back on the vegetarianism I just didn't eat. No learned behavior neccessary. That's the point I'm trying to make... humans can decide to do things that they don't want to, regardless of all else. I was not conditioned to enjoy the rain... I simply enjoy it, thus I do the opposite of the logical in the rain... I go out, not only without an umbrella, but without a rain coat or anything else. (Other than normal clothes... streaking ain't my bag.) I've also gone outside in below zero weather near naked and jumped in a snow bank, simply because I thought it would be fun. And it was. I left warmth... went to cold... and was extremely animated. This goes against all logic and self preservation... and let me tell you, I'm the opposite of disciplined. It wasn't a great act of willpower for me to go out in the cold... it was simply an act of whimsy. The only 'causes' to these 'effects' are my choices. The choice to go out into the cold was a cause... there was no other cause.

And yes, I realize anecdotes generally aren't good arguement, but in a situation in which one is trying to prove that the whole species exists in x way, the fact that I behave in y way disproves it.