Question of the Day - Do You Ultimately Belive in Fate or Free-Will? (August 1, 2010)

Both.
 
Genetics has some traits that are totally 'fate'.  Genetic diseases like cancer, or some times personality traits are genetically handed down.
 
That doesn't mean you can't change the outcome of some through free-will.

Either or ... i'm incredibly amazed we got this far without half the world blown up or at each others necks

Fate is the crutch of the weak.

i believe in a mix of fate and free wil

stuff happens

You can't condemn the criminals, nor can you praise the altruists for anything they do, because it wasn't their choice, they were destined to do it.

@Waffles13

It doesn't matter what you do, because it's all you can do, and therefore, why attempt to do anything?

However, even if there was evidence to the contrary, it wouldn't make any difference, because the second anyone truly starts believing that nothing they consciously do has any bearing on what will happen, the foundation of their life is gone and there is no longer any meaning in living.

No fate but what we make, dawg. 
 
Seeing as how there's no way to confirm or deny pre-ordained fate, I think there's room for both The Plan and individual plans. The Plan is the overall fate, and plans are things people do that fit into the Plan without interfering.  
 
More importantly, assholes use the fate argument to avoid responsibility, which is an abuse and makes me think of fate as an excuse, thus false.

Our bodies (and everything else) are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics are based on mathematics, which is deterministic; e.g. given the same set of initial conditions you will get the same result every time. Our bodies have an astronomical number of chemical reactions occuring at any one time, but this doesn't change the fact that they are still chemical, and not magic. Therefore the illusion of free will is only a side product of the enormous complexity of our bodies and the environment around it that makes prediction impossible.  
 
Edit: I just looked at how many people chose free will. At first I was surprised. Then I wasn't. 

" Free will is an illusion, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't treat it as if it doesn't exist.  Fate is just the inevitable outcome of the trillions of quadrillions of subtle changes that affect your every moment. "

Fatalism is a little crazy, as far as I am concerned. It's something that cannot be proved, so I just don't understand the draw.

I believe in Fatalities

C. Both. 

You forgot the third option: A little bit of both.

Free will. I agree that there are far more factors affecting people's thoughts and decisions than a lot of people realise but I have seen no proper evidence to conclude that fate really exists.

This is basically a question of whether you believe in god, or not. Fate is not real, although sometimes when everything falls into place perfectly, it sure does seem like it is. 

I choose free will!

Maybe I made my point a little too broadly. The consensus model of quantum physics is non-determinism. You can try to twist the universe back into determinism by creating an angel who decides which atom in a bundle of radioactive atoms decays, but there is no evidence for that angel. So the burden of proof is properly on the determinists, not the non-determinists.
 
A lot of armchair philosophers think they can roll up and start spouting nonsense about how free will is an illusion because of electron spin quarks tachyons blah blah blah, but the fact is they wouldn't know which end of a microscope to look in. So maybe they should stick to metaphysics.

I say life is like an ongoing rogue-like version of a Bioware RPG. You got branching paths where you make choices but they kind of all lead down to various outcomes. So where-in you may believe the possibilities to be endless, in reality you're life only has like 3-4 endings tops. So my answer is: kind of freewill & kind of fate.

Fate. Not the fate where your outcome is chosen for you, but fate in that you don't really choose what you do. Ultimately, the choices we make are based on past experiences and what mood we are in at the time, things that we do not control. 
 
Religion is an example. You can't really choose to believe or disbelieve a religion, it's something that you come to believe through the experiences that you have. Can one choose to suddenly believe in Santa Clause (I'm not comparing any gods to Santa Clause, just choosing an example that everyone can share)?

I like to believe in free will but would life be any less exciting and interesting if it wasn't?

Free will is nothing but an illusion.  However, as my one philosophy professor used to say, "It shouldn't change the way you brush your teeth in the morning."  :)

" @LordXavierBritish:  I don't see how chemicals in our brain = no free will. That is the function our brain performs and chemicals are how it achieves that function. What you're saying is like saying that because when I move my arm it is actually a series of muscles contracting and expanding that I am not really moving my arm, it's just an illusion. But of course I am moving my arm, the muscles are how my arm is able to complete that function. Similarly, of course I am using my brain to make descision, and the chemicals are how my brain achieves this function.  
 
@Geno:  If it were that simple, that our bodies make all our decisions for us and we are simply in a Cartesian Theater along for the ride, our bodies would have but one point: survival. Why would our brain, which makes chemical reactions perfectly logically to make our body survive, make descisions that serve any other purpose? Why did the brain of that dumb kid on youtube tell him it would be a great survivalist move to light his hand on fire? Or a fireman who rushes into a burning building to save someone's life, surely that is not a wise survivalist move. Like I said above, chemical reactions are our brains way of allowing us to make decisions, just like muscles are our hands way of allowing us to grasp and hold things. "

" @Icemael said:  

I am saying that everything you do, you do based on things that are beyond your control. From this it obviously follows that you can, in a given situation, regardless of how many options you think you have, only do one thing.

Of course you can only do one thing, because we perceive time in a linear fashion. Again, I am not arguing that we are omnipotent and free will means defying the laws of physics or time that we know. This whole question ultimately boils down to this point right here. You will say that that was the decision I was destined to made, and I will say it was the decision I chose to make."

The problem is that if some things are just fated to happen, you have to realize that most people would still be convinced they had free will anyways.  They'd refuse to believe that anything was happening due to destiny and claim it was the result of their choices alone.  The argument just plain can't be settled, because there's no way to know your fate, and thus no way to tell if you are defying it or playing right into it.

Edit: Also, this is not longer the question of the day!  It's the question of like, two days ago!  For some reason, that really angers me.

Because we have certain genes, they dictate how we'll act in any given situation, like an AI. And because we'll always act the same way, then the next person will act according to our actions in a chain effect. Our thoughts are influenced by past actions, forming us and our decision making process. And because everyone will always do things according to their genes, we have no influence over our surroundings, which in turn affect others, creating a cycle. 7-degrees of separation. I also believe in the Holographic Universe, which states that everything is connected, with neither space nor time separating things. 
 
For example, let's say Jimmy is born. He goes through life, and is bullied or something. This changes him as a person. He goes on and every action he's experienced influences the decision he makes, no matter how subtly. If he trips, he becomes more cautious for a brief period of time, changing his thoughts for that amount of time, which will then further snowball. He can say he's fighting his genes, but those are the genes simply telling him he's fighting. So he goes and eventually meets a lady. No matter what she says, he'll always respond a certain way due to past experiences and genes. Eventually they have a kid together, and their genes mix. They also raise the kid, giving him new experiences. Life goes on, and people create each other, both physically and spiritually. Everything works in tandem and creates a sort of "fate".

" @Geno:  If the deterministic nature of the chemical balances and reactions in your brain can span years, than how is it that people make sudden movements when in danger, or split second decisions? 

@mazik765

 To have a chemical balance that was planning this would be to infer that everything int he world is working on a carefully planned deterministic schedule, in which case there would most likely be a supreme deity controlling this (or at least one that had created it). 

@mazik765

I think it is more likely that people choose to use their brain (which is just a muscle like the one's found in your arm) to make that decision and augment their body to complete the decision on a physical level. 

@mazik765

I go back to the point of survivalist behavior. If our brains controlled our every movement and had everything planned out for us, sometimes for years in advance according to your statement, why would they bother to develop the concept of free will, only to have it need to constantly decieve us into thinking we have it. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just not develop the thought in the first place?   

@mazik765

Also if your goal is survival of our species (as is the goal of most species) why do some brains allow people to commit suicide if they are controlling their bodies? There are certain survival reflexes we have adapted such as the inability to drown oneself (as your head will instinctively jerk up for air if yo just have your head dunked), so if our brain has these reflexes pretty obviously focused on the goal of survival, why would it allow someone to even consider the thought of suicide, much less carry out the act.

@mazik765

Also, these reflexes we have are moments of perhaps involuntary movement that we directly identify as such. Maybe you put your hand on a hot stove and your hand instinctively jerks away, or perhaps it is the drowning example previously mentioned. We notice these as times that our freedom of movement is taken away for a moment. If we never had freedom of our movement, why would these periods strike us as different in contrast? Surely our brains could trick us into thinking that these movements were voluntary if that's what was happening all the time. 

Free Will, but it depends on your definition. To think that given the exact same circumstances of any choice you've made in your past, your past self wouldn't make the exact same choice is downright silly. YOU are still making that choice though. 
 
Edit: after actually reading the responses (I'm an awesome member, huh?) I think the real debate here is what you consider to be your "self" or even the definition of "free will" entirely. I wouldn't say that biological and chemical processes control me, I'd say that I am those biological and chemical processes. In that case, the choices I make are the result of who I am, which is something close to my definition of free will. To my definition, it doesn't matter if you only are ultimately capable of making one choice, you still made it. Fuck, this is why I'm not a philosophy major.

" Free Will, but it depends on your definition. To think that given the exact same circumstances of any choice you've made in your past, your past self wouldn't make the exact same choice is downright silly. YOU are still making that choice though. 
 
Edit: after actually reading the responses (I'm an awesome member, huh?) I think the real debate here is what you consider to be your "self" or even the definition of "free will" entirely. I wouldn't say that biological and chemical processes control me, I'd say that I am those biological and chemical processes. In that case, the choices I make are the result of who I am, which is something close to my definition of free will. To my definition, it doesn't matter if you only are ultimately capable of making one choice, you still made it. Fuck, this is why I'm not a philosophy major. "

I still don't see how you're theory of determinism would not require some sort of supreme deity or force. I am well aware that a single reaction could take as little time as several nanoseconds, but what about the over-arching reaction that the one action is part of that you mention. A reaction that takes several trillion steps over the course of a decade of instance. If nothing else in the world was happening and the chemical reaction could just keep moving forward as the reaction dictates, than I would be totally on board. But your brain does not have control of external forces, external forces that likely require your brain to make immediate choices that it could not have anticipated or had a reaction prepared for. Unless everything is moving in a very pre-ordained fashion (e.g. being controlled by a divine being) how could this happen? It can't. Your brain makes decisions, and thus chemical reactions, as a reaction to external inputs. There cannot be a cumulative chemical reaction which takes place over several years, because incoming inputs to not take years to appear and manifest before you. They take seconds. No 1+1=2 does not mean there is God. But if you told me 1's brain magically knew that the next digit would be 1 and thus already had a chemical reaction in the works that would arrive at 2, that puts forth an awfully convincing evidence as the the existence of a grater deity (which is not what I'm arguing, just to be clear :) ).

@mazik765

Also saying that it is just like asking why we don't have wings and breathe fire is the same as what I am suggesting to completely false. Not having evolved into a certain trait yet (e.g. who knows...maybe we will breath fire in the future) or having evolved out of the use of something that we once needed for survival (such as the tailbone) is one thing. Evolving a useless trait only to have to spend energy on deceiving the creature that it has said trait (when in reality it doesn't) is another entirely. Why would the brain evolve to have the idea of free will if it serves no practical survival purpose and take additional energy to keep up this arbitrary charade for it's entire existence? 
 

@mazik765

And living at all costs is exactly what survival responses are about; not for the individual but for the species. The example you use of an animal laying down and dying is pretty simple to explain, since if it were to stay with the herd it would slow the entire herd down and make it more vulnerable. So it decides to give itself up to allow the species (or at least the herd) to survive. Human suicide does not fit into this. Why would a perfectly healthy individual decide to take their own life if our brains complex and logical chemical reactions which should be based on survival impulses are controlling our every move?

@mazik765

Also the reflex must go through the brain because your body will not identify pain or danger until your nervous system has transmitted this to your brain. I'm not arguing that we do not have chemicals reaction in our brain and neurotransmitters moving throughout our body. I am arguing that we are in more control over them then you put forth. We do not have control over the incoming information our body receives, but we do have control over our outward reaction. Similarly we don't have control over the external consequence that the outward reaction creates.

Fate guides me to my end, I follow it blindly wondering what will happen next.

By your logic everything that currently exists within the realm of humanity exists as contributor to survival. This is simply not true, our appendix as a physical example and religion as an anthropological example (let's not forget, oh, every disease in the world as well). Again, you seem to misunderstand evolution; by definition it doesn't seek to be perfect, only "good enough" and with plenty of room for error. 

You contradict yourself a bit here as earlier you mentioned altruism as a trait that goes unexplained as a point against my argument, yet here you go explaining it and using it in your own. Anyway, as mentioned above survival is not about living at all costs, and there is plenty of room for error. You may as well ask why some people are born dumber or weaker than others if maximum intelligence and strength are obviously the best survival traits. 

Free Will. Nothing is written.

Fate. Simply cause it sounds cooler.

People sure do get intense about online debates...

Red Pill