My question is about free will And if we have it . Do we have free
will in our judgments or all the decision which we make are based on
the genetic effects and the effects of the environments around us from
birth until to the point which a decision is made ?  Suppose if we
created 2 genetically identical clones and Lets say in theory we could
create the same exact environments and events for them would they make
exactly same choices and at the same time ? And if they do it would be
another prove that our actions are purely based on how the nature
brought as up to that point and how the events up to that point are
conceted ( environmental , genetic .. Effects ). Then is life only
continued related events ? dont we have free will or control over this events ?

---

Clarification of Question by girbox-ga on 29 May 2006 18:10 PDT

I know it can not be proven scientifically but Could you please
explain why you belive either we have free will or not ?

You won't get a consensus answer, however part of your question is
answerable. Under identical conditions even something as simple as an
atom will not always behave the same way in an experiment. This
quantum mechanical uncertainty is a fundamental attribute of our
physical world, at least within our current level of understanding.
Also, even within classical physics, an arbitrarily small perturbation
can cause macroscopically divergent results.

On the other hand. I don't believe that either of these examples have
anything to say about whether or not we have free will. Personally, I
don't believe in free will, but I don't think it is a question that
can be answered scientifically.

You might start by reading these sites:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

I have free will if my wife allows it.

I believe we are exceedingly complex machines, no different in
principle from an ant or a computer. I do not believe that ants or
computers have free will. Our actions are determined by the laws of
physics operating on this complex machine. Certainly what is happening
in our brains determine what we do, but free will is just an illusion.

Just one man's opinion. This is a debate that will never be settled.

No ... we are programmed from birth by our parents, teachers,
politicians, newspapers, etc.

It's all a wonderful illusion.

(At least if you live in the 'developed' Western countries.)

As a not so large person myself, I resent the assumption that wee
people are in any way different than larger individuals.

Yes, we have free will.  God certainly holds us accountable for the
choice we make in our relationship to Him.  It affects our eternal
destiny.  If we had no real choice in the matter, we would not be held
accountable.

Politicalguru had no choice about responding as above; to see the typo
as significant (spurred by a bit of egocentricity), and to overcome
the programmed response of a well-educated person to the
philosophical/religious connotations of the question.  ;)

Ultimately this cannot be resolved. No matter how elegant my arguments
in favor of free will are, it can always be claimed I am
pre-programmed to make those arguments. Conversely: if I argue against
free will, you could claim that I am choosing to make that case out of
perversity.

Is pre-destination (or determinism) valid ?

I would say yes, we are 'genetic machines', and our environment is
another type of machine.

However, throwing ones hands up in the air and saying 'Insh' Allah' is
not very useful
- some people are 'programmed' to believe that we have 'Free Will', 
- they don't like fatalists.

- sometimes it is better 'knowing' one thing, but choosing to believe another
- of course there is no real 'choice'

Personally intellectually, I believe that we don't have free will
- but believe people should act, and react, as if they believed that they did
- obviously they have no choice - but so what

Did you know, it is actually rather difficult producing a random number.

I am free to do whatever I am not prevented from doing. But if the
only thing I can do is whatever I am not prevented from doing, then
what I do is the only thing I can do.

Just a wee bit.

I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to
radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to
jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a
cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist.
-Albert Einstein

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10737.html#orgs

It is actually an open question in physics. 
Moreover, the determinism in physics issue is not necessarily the same issue
as free will in psychology and social contexts.

If Hedgie, you had said 'Social Contracts' rather than 'Social Contexts'

Then you would, IMO, have pinned it down.

'As the scorpion said, it is my nature'
- pan fried scorpion sounds good to me.

>>>I am free to do whatever I am not prevented from doing. But if the
only thing I can do is whatever I am not prevented from doing, then
what I do is the only thing I can do.<<<

That's deep man.

I don't know.  But if weeeee do have free will, then to believe we
don't is to shoot ourselves in the foot.  It's the same with God.  If
you think there's even a remote chance that he exists, you may as well
believe in him, because otherwise you risk not making it through the
pearly gates.  (I decided there isn't even a remote chance, so I go
ahead and deny his existence...)

Let's say that free will exists and you like ice cream and you don't
like exercise and you don't want to get fat(ter).  If you believe in
free will, you might choose to forego the icecream and go for a jog,
resulting, eventually, in a thinner you.  But if you don't believe in
free will, you'll figure there's no point in making the effort since
the outcome is predetermined.  Result: fat you.

Of course, if there is not free will, it doesn't matter what you
believe (and anyway you have no choice in the matter), but on the
off-chance that there is, I say believe in it--what've you got to
lose?

I have met a few people who claimed that they did not believe in free
will. I wonder: if I had punched these people in the nose, would they
have shrugged it off, since (according to their beliefs) I could not
have chosen to do otherwise?

I think the operation of civilized society requires a belief in free
will. The concepts of credit for good deeds and blame for bad deeds
are quite meaningless if everything is a puppet show; if we cannot
truly make decisions in our own right, then no one can be held
accountable for anything, and all behaviors are acceptable.

It doesn't matter to me if I have free will or not. I still know what
I want, and I still have to deal with reality.

The idea of free will has been around for most of Western civilisation
and continues to be influenced by current contexts. The problem that
modern civilisation has with free will is fundamentally to do with two
opposing principles of modern society. On one hand we have liberal
democracy, which guarantees individuality and identity. We are all
free people, to do whatever we want to do, so long as we don't
interfere with each other. These kind of ideas gel well with the idea
of free will - i.e. living in such a society, it's natural to believe
that you have the power to do make free decisions.
On the other hand we have empirical science, which has given us
technology, engineering, medicine and so on. It has also given us
psychology. For about the first 20 years of its professional existence
in North America (c. 1920) psychology dealt a lot with a faculty known
as the 'will' which is more or less the same thing as 'free-will'.
Nowadays it doesn't. Why not? Because free-will is incompatible with a
scientific view of the mind. Think about it, if you are examining
people from a deterministic (everything is pre-ordained) and
mechanistic (everything boils down to physics, no souls or gods), as
scientists do, then notions of free-will rapidly become troublesome.
So its hard to believe in free-will if you're a scientist, and if you
do believe in free-will you won't make much of a psychologist.

Personally, I don't have much faith in my own ability to affect major
changes in my own life. I don't think that we have much control over
our destiny. What I do believe we have control over is our judgement
of things. So I accept that there are things that I cannot hope to
change, but try to view my situation as positively as possible. I get
this from Stoicism - see Marcus Aurelius' Meditations or Epictetus'
Enchiridion.

Without free will you are nothing more than a prisoner of space and
time.  That is why God gave us this gift.

Though it would be easy enough for him to deny us this gift and make
us slaves, he doesn't want that for us, he wants us to freely make the
choice to worship him or deny him.

Uh-huh.

Ok, any area your are surrounded by is an environemnt, emptiness is an
environment. If you were in an infinent void, you will still act in
some way because of the area you are in. If you were in a Jungle, you
will act in some way because of the area you are in.

Lets say Free Will is Parallel to one of Newtons Laws of Physics,
Every Action has a Reaction.

You have the free Will to choose, doesnt matter if your are supressed
physically or mentaly,If you have a brain, you still have the
capabilty of thought, which gives you the capabilty of action. Action
doesnt only have to be physical as in movement, it can be mental.

Example 1 

Here is the flaw of free will related to science. As I stated above,
every actions has a reaction. *action = choice / reaction =
consequence (good/bad)*

You are Holding a Gun, You are pointig the gun at someone, you
*choose* to pull the trigger. The *consequence* is that you have
absolutley no control of the bullet once it is shot because of the
laws of physics.

Example 2

You are standing on the edge of a tall tower. You *choose* to jump
off, you cannot control the *consequence* because you are falling due
to the law of gravtiy.

SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
Here is the Million Dollar Question. What Does Free Will Mean? If it
is the capabilty to control the mind. We all have Free Will, even
Psychopaths, or the insane. *But, If we have free Will, does that mean
we have control over the consequences also?*

Think About It.

based on the previous answer, free will, and ultimately whether or not
we have free will, is determined by the level of astraction you are
willing to define separate entities.  "control" over one's environment
is something which is extremely complex to tie down for the reasons
previously mentioned.  You can fire the gun but not manipulate the
bullet, etc.  When I say "level of abstaction" I am referring to the
level of phyiscal relationships you are willing to submit as
intrinsically linked (determined by each other).  So, for instance,
instead of saying that you only pulled the trigger, which then made
the gun fire a bullet which you couldn't control, you simply state
that there "was a shooting" which, easily enough, was under your
"control".  Let me switch examples so you can see my point.

When you lift you left leg, your brain sends an electric impulse down
your spinal cord, which then sends another electric impulse to your
hip and thigh which lifts your leg.  Can you "control" the electric
impulse itself?  of course not!  But action and reaction are
intrinsicly linked at such a basic level we assert they are one and
the same.  The point at which you make this distinction of action and
reaction depends on the "level" or amount you are willing to assume as
linked.

Now to tackle your clone issue.  In quantum physics (which I'm sure
everyone knows loads about) there is a hypthetical example which goes
like this:  If one  particle splits into two and those two shoot away
from each other in exactly the opposite direction, they have the exact
same characteristics.  However, Heisenburg (a famous theoretical
physicist) has a principle named uncertainty which ultimately implies
(stated simply) that since taking measurements on any given particle
changes that particle somehow, we cannot determine if those two
particles are the same, we just simply assume that they are.  So, if
you have two clones, how could you have the same researcher testing
them by giving them a choice at the same time?  even if they were in
the same room, he would have be to the left of the room for one and
the right of the room for the other.  You could then say you would
have two clone doctors, but how could they take the same medical exam
on the same day from the same seat?  It becomes increasingly more
difficult to assume identicallity, and as such, your concept of "free
will" comes into issue.  "Free will" does have to do with action, but
remember, that action is in an environment which you and I ultimately
don't have any control over at all; only percieved control (remember
the leg example).  How much control you percieve (or think) you have
over your environment is what ultimately determines how much control
you think others have over their environment.   There will always be
those who give god their ultimate control; in religion, specifically
christianty, god states that 'there is free will' and thus the
religious have faith in that and come to percieve control over their
environment.  There will always be those who do not assert any control
to others or themselves and also assert that there is no free will
because they feel they don't control their lives.  But don't forget,
there is a spectrum of how much people are willing to submit is free
will and how much is pre-determined.

Of course we have free will. Our free will is go great that we can't
ever predict the future. Quantum uncertanty.