Is it done? :D
Feb. 27th, 2008 10:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
starsthatshineSqueee! I think I might just have finished the Philosophy paper that I was going to write for English class! Call it divine inspiration or something ;) Anyway, I would love you to bits and pieces if you could read it through and tell me what you think. If there are any grammar errors or if I need to develop something or if I've missed something. To those who want to know the subject it's whether or not we have free will and I feel as if this version is actually something I can stand for. Something I could turn in and sort of be proud of.
Do we have free will?
The thought of free will is a question that has intrigued scientists and people for decades, mostly because it's a question with different aspects and we can't say any of them are less true than another. One aspect is the biological, that because we live in a physical world the laws of physics apply and the brain controls our free will.
If we drop a ball, it will fall. If we cut ourselves, we bleed.
Decisions are formed based on the chemical balance in our brain and the previous knowledge which the brain has been taught during the course of our existence.
It sounds plausible, but is it necessarily true? There is a psychological theory called phrenology which claims that certain personality traits lie within the different parts of the brain. It was particularly popular in the 19th century. However, there is not much scientific evidence to support this claim since psychologists claim that at the present, it is impossible to say whether the brain is responsible for a certain type of behaviour or not. Which makes the idea of a "killer gene" (that criminal behaviour is hereditary) look like something out of a science fiction novel or simply like an excuse for any wrong doing that might occur.
But at the same time the brain is such a vast and unexplored territory that it makes it impossible to say. Our knowledge of the brain is extremely restricted and there's no telling of what discoveries the future will hold. Today's scientists only say "no" simply because they don't have enough information that indicates a "yes".
The question of free will can often land in religious grounds as well, because in Christianity, for example, Christians believe that man was created as an image of God and that he has an individual plan for each of his "children" - a destiny sort to speak (Christianity is not alone with this belief but I'm not familiar with the others). A purpose with each of those he lets into his creation. A purpose written in stone. And if there is such a thing as god, it means that there is such a thing as destiny. And that means that there is no such thing as free will, because you cannot deviate from the path God sent you on. No matter how you choose, you will always end up at the same place.
But then there are those who do not believe in a deity but believe that there’s a destiny. Isn’t that contradictory? If there is such a thing as destiny, what decides our fate? If it’s ourselves, then there’s no such thing as destiny because there’s no destiny but what we make. You are then free to deviate from the path which means that our future is uncertain.
Then there are several questions that can continue this line of thought, but I feel that it’s pretty irrelevant to the question. Questions such as “is there a God?”, “is there a soul?” etc. might be interesting to try and answer and try to make some sense of but it’s not the point of this essay.
Based on the evidence and theories above I’d have to say that my own opinion of whether we have free will or not, remains very flexible.
Can there be such a thing as partial free will? Can there be a destiny but small deviants from the pattern, small choices that might not perhaps let us choose our own fate but maybe a different way of getting there? If we take mathematical problems as an example, equations can be solved in different ways but the answer will always be the same unless you answer incorrectly or change the equation. Cannot the same rules apply to free will?
But what is free will? Is free will when we have a whole smorgasbord of choices and we can just pick our favourites or is it like probability theory (me again with my mathematical theories) where you have a set of choices you can make and depending on which choice you make, others open up? Like a complex pattern which we can’t quite make out because we’re standing too close. I don’t think such a theory would necessarily contradict the idea of fate because since we can’t see the full pattern, we don’t know if trying to make all the wrong choices would have any effect. We could still end up in the same place as destiny intended us to. I guess people could argue that the theory I just brought up can be considered as set in stone but I don’t think so. I think we can choose how long it will take for us to fulfill our destiny but the destination will always be there. Kind of how you can choose when to eat, but you can’t choose that you have to eat in order to survive. Just because you’re cranky doesn’t mean that the laws of nature doesn’t apply to you.
I don’t know. If there is such a thing as partial free will, I guess I’d like to believe that one. Maybe because I’m an optimist or maybe it just sounds wacky enough for me to believe. I definitely believe in destiny because some experiences seem too perfectly planned to be coincidental, if that makes sense.
Maybe criminals are supposed to go down certain paths, or make certain mistakes in order to discover something about themselves, others or about life further down the road. Maybe the experiences of crime will end up making the perpetrators remorseful and in the end, they end up making a valuable contribution to society or to another person.
Is that good? Did I miss anything? Did I say something that didn't make sense? Constructive criticism is good. Like I mentioned before, I've never taken a minute of Philosophy. Was it too short? Was it just long enough? I might feel that the introduction paragraph might be lacking some, but that's my personal feeling.
Do we have free will?
The thought of free will is a question that has intrigued scientists and people for decades, mostly because it's a question with different aspects and we can't say any of them are less true than another. One aspect is the biological, that because we live in a physical world the laws of physics apply and the brain controls our free will.
If we drop a ball, it will fall. If we cut ourselves, we bleed.
Decisions are formed based on the chemical balance in our brain and the previous knowledge which the brain has been taught during the course of our existence.
It sounds plausible, but is it necessarily true? There is a psychological theory called phrenology which claims that certain personality traits lie within the different parts of the brain. It was particularly popular in the 19th century. However, there is not much scientific evidence to support this claim since psychologists claim that at the present, it is impossible to say whether the brain is responsible for a certain type of behaviour or not. Which makes the idea of a "killer gene" (that criminal behaviour is hereditary) look like something out of a science fiction novel or simply like an excuse for any wrong doing that might occur.
But at the same time the brain is such a vast and unexplored territory that it makes it impossible to say. Our knowledge of the brain is extremely restricted and there's no telling of what discoveries the future will hold. Today's scientists only say "no" simply because they don't have enough information that indicates a "yes".
The question of free will can often land in religious grounds as well, because in Christianity, for example, Christians believe that man was created as an image of God and that he has an individual plan for each of his "children" - a destiny sort to speak (Christianity is not alone with this belief but I'm not familiar with the others). A purpose with each of those he lets into his creation. A purpose written in stone. And if there is such a thing as god, it means that there is such a thing as destiny. And that means that there is no such thing as free will, because you cannot deviate from the path God sent you on. No matter how you choose, you will always end up at the same place.
But then there are those who do not believe in a deity but believe that there’s a destiny. Isn’t that contradictory? If there is such a thing as destiny, what decides our fate? If it’s ourselves, then there’s no such thing as destiny because there’s no destiny but what we make. You are then free to deviate from the path which means that our future is uncertain.
Then there are several questions that can continue this line of thought, but I feel that it’s pretty irrelevant to the question. Questions such as “is there a God?”, “is there a soul?” etc. might be interesting to try and answer and try to make some sense of but it’s not the point of this essay.
Based on the evidence and theories above I’d have to say that my own opinion of whether we have free will or not, remains very flexible.
Can there be such a thing as partial free will? Can there be a destiny but small deviants from the pattern, small choices that might not perhaps let us choose our own fate but maybe a different way of getting there? If we take mathematical problems as an example, equations can be solved in different ways but the answer will always be the same unless you answer incorrectly or change the equation. Cannot the same rules apply to free will?
But what is free will? Is free will when we have a whole smorgasbord of choices and we can just pick our favourites or is it like probability theory (me again with my mathematical theories) where you have a set of choices you can make and depending on which choice you make, others open up? Like a complex pattern which we can’t quite make out because we’re standing too close. I don’t think such a theory would necessarily contradict the idea of fate because since we can’t see the full pattern, we don’t know if trying to make all the wrong choices would have any effect. We could still end up in the same place as destiny intended us to. I guess people could argue that the theory I just brought up can be considered as set in stone but I don’t think so. I think we can choose how long it will take for us to fulfill our destiny but the destination will always be there. Kind of how you can choose when to eat, but you can’t choose that you have to eat in order to survive. Just because you’re cranky doesn’t mean that the laws of nature doesn’t apply to you.
I don’t know. If there is such a thing as partial free will, I guess I’d like to believe that one. Maybe because I’m an optimist or maybe it just sounds wacky enough for me to believe. I definitely believe in destiny because some experiences seem too perfectly planned to be coincidental, if that makes sense.
Maybe criminals are supposed to go down certain paths, or make certain mistakes in order to discover something about themselves, others or about life further down the road. Maybe the experiences of crime will end up making the perpetrators remorseful and in the end, they end up making a valuable contribution to society or to another person.
Is that good? Did I miss anything? Did I say something that didn't make sense? Constructive criticism is good. Like I mentioned before, I've never taken a minute of Philosophy. Was it too short? Was it just long enough? I might feel that the introduction paragraph might be lacking some, but that's my personal feeling.
