Freedom

• Shizuo wrote on 2011-11-22 00:08
  Okay, first off, I'd like to point out that this is Philosophy of Freedom and does not have to do with anything political. So this has nothing to do with government or freedom in society. That is a slightly different branch of philosophy (and I might start a thread about that later if this one turns out good). I would also like to point out that this also has nothing to do with religion either, which is also a slightly different branch of philosophy. I won't start a topic about that here since I think that might start a fight.
  
  Now that that's out of the way, here are the questions for this:
  1. What is freedom?
  2. Does freedom exist in a universe governed by natural laws?
  
  What the second question means is: Are you free to, instead of driving to work (or school), fly there instead? And I don't mean on a plane/helicopter/jetpack. I mean actually flapping your arms and flying there. The answer is: of course not. Humans can't fly on their own; they aren't built to. So, are you truly free, then? Even though there are certain natural laws preventing you from flying on your own even if you wanted to, are you still free?
  
  This kind of philosophy also goes over a few other things, and I'll put up some arguments concerning it if you're interested (you may decide that you agree with one). If not, then go ahead and ignore.
  
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]
  The first kind of argument is called determinism. It simply says that everything happens by necessity (the world influences us). We don't really notice the world influencing our decisions and so we only think that we have freedom, but we don't. The original concept stated that determinism and free will could not exist at the same time. However, they later stated that determinism and free will are compatible with each other (otherwise known as compatibilism).
  There are a couple other arguments related to determinism, called Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism. Hard determinism goes over freedom and necessity on a universal scale. It said something along the lines of: everything in the world is determined by natural laws (physics, chemistry, etc.) and that the world would someday come to realize that free will did not exist because the world is entirely determined by natural laws. Later, people began to believe that the world on a quantum level was indeterministic, but they agreed that the macroscopic world was deterministic. So, Newtonian physics can explain the behavior of objects that we can see, but not the behavior of quarks (a subatomic particle). The macroscopic world was, instead, "near-determined" or "deterministic for all practical purposes". In other words: "Maybe the quark's behavior isn't determined, but your behavior is." However, most people today disagree with hard determinism because:
  a. there is little evidence saying that everything (including subatomic particles) is determined.
  b. "near-determined" or "deterministic for all practical purposes" is not convincing.
  
  Soft determinism goes over freedom and necessity on the level of our ordinary perceptions of the ordinary world. Some questions include: "Was John free not to steal a loaf of bread?" or "Am I free to pick a number at random after I have heard another number?"
  
  There is also something called indeterminism, which states that at least one thing in the world is a random occurrence. It says that determinism is false because random things happen.
  
  Close to indeterminism is libertarianism (again, nothing to do with politics), which states that at least one thing in the universe is a result of free will. It is similar to indeterminism, except libertarianism says that determinism is false because free will exists (instead of random events).
  
  There are also some theories called materialist theories. This suggests that mental acts are related to actions in the brain (neurological workings and such). So does free will correspond to some activity in the brain? If so, what does it correspond to?
  
  There is also existentialism, which holds that we individually create humanity (or human nature) at every moment through our free acts. We are defined by the way we confront freedom.
  
  Some smaller arguments are bad faith and perverse freedom (related to existentialism).
  Bad faith simply says that we attempt to flee from our freedom. In other words, we don't want to be responsible for our own actions. Good faith is simply the opposite of this.
  Perverse freedom says that "one is not truly free so long as one is constrained to make choices that are for one's own good." In other words, you are not free so long as you have to obey your stomach's demand for food.[/SPOILER]
  
  Keep in mind that this is philosophy and that there is no right or wrong answer. Please respect that people believe in different things and do not be rude if you disagree with them. I'll say again that this is not freedom in the political sense of the word (or religious for that matter).
• Zid wrote on 2011-11-22 17:48
  Quite interesting. The idea of a sandbox and, if so, limitations.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]The first kind of argument is called determinism. It simply says that everything happens by necessity (the world influences us). We don't really notice the world influencing our decisions and so we only think that we have freedom, but we don't. The original concept stated that determinism and free will could not exist at the same time. However, they later stated that determinism and free will are compatible with each other (otherwise known as compatibilism).[/spoiler]

  
  
  I'm more likely to agree with compatibilism. There is a reason why there is a saying "You can push your limitations."
  
  For example, let's take that flying scenario. Obviously, we can't flap our wings to fly. But how is it that the bat can fly? Why can a sugar glider glide while we can't?
  
  The universe influences us, or in a better sense, limits us, based on what our needs are. This is the concept of evolution, or in the bigger picture, the concept of adaption. In that concept, one can argue that the flow of nature is minimalist in design. Humans can't fly, because there really never was a need to, in order to survive into generations. The free will of the humans determined that, since we don't need to fly to survive, the tools of nature never had a need to give us wings.
  
  In short, it is our own freedom that restrains us, and nature is only obliged to fit the "mold" to reflect our decision.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]There are a couple other arguments related to determinism, called Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism. Hard determinism goes over freedom and necessity on a universal scale. It said something along the lines of: everything in the world is determined by natural laws (physics, chemistry, etc.) and that the world would someday come to realize that free will did not exist because the world is entirely determined by natural laws. Later, people began to believe that the world on a quantum level was indeterministic, but they agreed that the macroscopic world was deterministic. So, Newtonian physics can explain the behavior of objects that we can see, but not the behavior of quarks (a subatomic particle). The macroscopic world was, instead, "near-determined" or "deterministic for all practical purposes". In other words: "Maybe the quark's behavior isn't determined, but your behavior is." However, most people today disagree with hard determinism because:
  a. there is little evidence saying that everything (including subatomic particles) is determined.
  b. "near-determined" or "deterministic for all practical purposes" is not convincing.[/spoiler]

  
  
  I agree there are concepts of reality that just are as they are. Because they are laws, so at one point, there will be realization that there are "impossibilities" that will never be surpassed (unless we somehow have the freedom to bend/change the laws of nature itself, but that's another story). However, besides that limitation, there's still free will, if one can call it that. It's similar to having kids do/play what they want on a playground, but also must obey rules that are set.
  
  I don't believe there will be an indetermined plane of science for all of time. We don't understand subatomic particles because they are so vastly different than Newtonian and Einstein's ideas, and thus are slow in unraveling and putting into words how to describe and understand quarks. We're always learning, so the impasse of indeterminability is always getting weaker until it's gone.
  
  We are "free", in that scenario. Not completely there yet, but getting there.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Soft determinism goes over freedom and necessity on the level of our ordinary perceptions of the ordinary world. Some questions include: "Was John free not to steal a loaf of bread?" or "Am I free to pick a number at random after I have heard another number?"[/spoiler]

  
  
  If it's human perception, then the term is bounded to human "freedom". That's a subject by itself.
  
  Anybody can "steal" a loaf of bread, though it will only be called "taking the loaf of bread" within the freedom of nature, not human.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]There is also something called indeterminism, which states that at least one thing in the world is a random occurrence. It says that determinism is false because random things happen.[/spoiler]

  
  
  I can neither agree or disagree with this. I believe that everything around us is but the effect of (maybe) an infinitely long cause-and-effect. But that's only if I think of "everything around us" as a closed system. As in, anything outside the system and entering that system can be a random occurrence. That's only if everything (matter, space, time, laws) is but a closed system, which I also cannot rule in favor or against. It is within my understanding that it is most likely beyond any infinite(?) level of human comprehension.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Close to indeterminism is libertarianism (again, nothing to do with politics), which states that at least one thing in the universe is a result of free will. It is similar to indeterminism, except libertarianism says that determinism is false because free will exists (instead of random events).[/SPOILER]

  
  
  See my above reasoning. Though I will say, free will can be entirely related to random occurrence, but only if no laws are bounded to free will (in that case, I don't even think it should even be called "free will" anymore).
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]There are also some theories called materialist theories. This suggests that mental acts are related to actions in the brain (neurological workings and such). So does free will correspond to some activity in the brain? If so, what does it correspond to?[/SPOILER]

  
  
  One can argue those neurological activities are but a cause-and-effect of but an incredibly complex web of interactions with the brain, such as learning how to deal with wounds, and what you actually do when wounded, in a specific situation of being wounded.
  
  So one must then ask, is cause-and-effect related or have anything to do with free will?
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]There is also existentialism, which holds that we individually create humanity (or human nature) at every moment through our free acts. We are defined by the way we confront freedom.[/SPOILER]

  
  
  This is interesting, because it is built upon the concept of relativity. As in, how everything around you is related to you.
  
  There is nothing wrong with existentialism, because there is nothing wrong with relativity. After all, relativity is how one entity interacts with everything else, and this is entirely a law of nature, the law that gives everything the property to interact with each other, fundamental in proving "existence" exists.
  
  As existence become ever so (most likely infinitely) detailed, so does relativity. So thus existentialism. I agree this is a valid state of freedom, falling within lines of relativity (human perception and comprehension).
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Some smaller arguments are bad faith and perverse freedom (related to existentialism).
  Bad faith simply says that we attempt to flee from our freedom. In other words, we don't want to be responsible for our own actions. Good faith is simply the opposite of this.
  Perverse freedom says that "one is not truly free so long as one is constrained to make choices that are for one's own good." In other words, you are not free so long as you have to obey your stomach's demand for food.[/SPOILER]

  
  
  I don't have anything to say for bad/good faith.
  
  Perverse freedom seems more like an argument alongside compatibilism to me, since it seems to be based on human needs than wants. It goes back to limiting our freedom based on our needs, for the sake of nature's minimalistic ways.
  
  If we wanted to surpass hunger for freedom, again we have to push that limit back until it's no more. Unlike flying, we actually need to eat. For us to fly, we impose it as a need, to be granted the freedom to fly. For us to never hunger again, we rid ourselves of the need to feed ourselves for nutrition, so that we don't have that limit anymore.
  
  In a way, "freedom" and "limit" are two sides of the coin that represents the sandbox, or the closed system.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;667786:

  Now that that's out of the way, here are the questions for this:
  1. What is freedom?
  2. Does freedom exist in a universe governed by natural laws?

  
  
  

  1. Freedom is where limit is not. That's as simple and all-encompassing as I can explain it.
     
  2. Unless the universe is at an absolute extreme, then yes. It is then the dimension of time that ties together freedoms and limits, setting in motion what is known as "cause and effect" (which some will argue is but the absolute limit of everything).