Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this.
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
I hope I'm not disappointing you, but I have short answers to both of your questions.
1) Natural disasters occur as the result of completely intentional (by the creator) physical processes. There are some really excellent reasons that planets have tectonic plates, ask a geologist. And if you have tectonic plates, you're going to get earthquakes. I think that natural disasters aren't comparable to human-induced suffering like genocide. Frankly, I think that even a world without suffering would still have tragedies like this. It's not fair to expect God to make sure we're all safe and warm at night, else we accuse him of cruelty. God's kind of above that, and I think he's much more interested in allowing us to take care of one another than in doing it all himself.
2) God knows man. I couldn't say. I think that God gave us free will so that we could share in the drama of life. Yeah it's a sad story, but I'd say that God's not ready to end the story quite yet because he wants to see where the story goes.
I know it's cliche, but why do you believe god allows things like tsunamis, earthquakes etc.?
Also, why doesn't Jesus return if more people are being born into a cursed world? Wouldn't it be better to just end it now?
Not trying to be critical, just curious what you think. It seems like some things I've thought about could relate and you've probably thought about it more than me.
I hope I'm not disappointing you, but I have short answers to both of your questions.
1) Natural disasters occur as the result of completely intentional (by the creator) physical processes. There are some really excellent reasons that planets have tectonic plates, ask a geologist. And if you have tectonic plates, you're going to get earthquakes. I think that natural disasters aren't comparable to human-induced suffering like genocide. Frankly, I think that even a world without suffering would still have tragedies like this. It's not fair to expect God to make sure we're all safe and warm at night, else we accuse him of cruelty. God's kind of above that, and I think he's much more interested in allowing us to take care of one another than in doing it all himself.
2) God knows man. I couldn't say. I think that God gave us free will so that we could share in the drama of life. Yeah it's a sad story, but I'd say that God's not ready to end the story quite yet because he wants to see where the story goes.
Please read: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the shorter On the miscarraige of all philosophical trials in theodicy by Kant (it's a chapter from a larger work).
Your theodicy is a very elementary one that has been discussed ad naseam that it just isn't worth talking about in this thread, in the way the thread has already moved on. I tell you this as a theology student.
On March 06 2012 07:19 koreasilver wrote:. Please read: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the shorter On the miscarraige of all philosophical trials in theodicy by Kant (it's a chapter from a larger work).
Your theodicy is a very elementary one that has been discussed ad naseam that it just isn't worth talking about in this thread, in the way the thread has already moved on. I tell you this as a theology student.
Thanks professor, for giving us a homework assignment instead of contributing to a discussion. You've basically put your elitist hat on and told me I'm childish. You haven't made a single persuasive or non-trivial comment in this entire thread (yes I checked), so why don't we try giving one another real feedback for a change?
How about you start by telling me why my beliefs are untenable? In your own words please.
On March 05 2012 23:13 Felnarion wrote: I'm not going to descend with you guys into the depths of physics to explain this.
To bring back something I read earlier in the thread...If we are destined to behave in pre-determined ways..What governs them?
Imagine a scenario where someone has a gun to my head and the evildoer demands I move my leg. What if I refuse? This is a possibility. Why would I refuse? If my actions are predetermined, how would I refuse? Surely evolution would show us that I should behave in my best interest, correct? I mean, if evolution is true, then things must, by and large, operate in such a way as to preserve themselves?
So, why can I refuse to move my leg and thus die? Unless we are governed on something else? Maybe we all simply live out of spite. All the things we do are to spite death, except in my scenario, where my "willingness" to spite death is lower than how much I want to spite the evildoer?
I've read the research that actions begin before the conscious brain realizes it. I understand that, but why is it, that once I do realize I am moving, I can stop it? Without free will, how is this possible? Is the argument that evolution and the universe has given us two, completely uncontrollable, competing, "wills" that we are prisoners inside?
For one, I don't believe it. I do recognize that instinct kicks in before the brain realizes it, as an evolutionary response, but the brain has veto power, it's obvious. My consciousness creates justifications for the reasons to not do something. I can operate against, or within, my own interests, on a whim, for any justification.
What purpose would that serve, in evolution? It makes far more sense for there to be an uncontrolled or less-controlled component (instincts, and auto responses) that protect us when we don't have time to consider, and then another, more evolved portion, that allows us to consider. Are you posturing that considering can't exist because of our current flimsy knowledge of physics? I don't accept that, when it goes against everything we all feel.
And even so, even if you are correct, it benefits us not at all to know it. To know that we in fact have no control would unravel our entire existence, and probably be the death of humanity.
To finish it up? I can definitely say, from all the things I have witnessed and all the things in the world that are known to us..If we don't have true free-will, we have the most free-will of any object, thing, or being. We're as close as one can get. We should leave it at that.
I have to say this is probably the most well thought out and neutral post in this thread. We need more of these.
The most well thought out and neutral?
All he's saying is that because he can't explain a behavior, it MUST not be determined. That's an extremely simplistic thought process, and it's been repeated in this thread since page one. Just because we are ignorant of the causes of something does not mean it is not caused.
But I get that you like the post because you like to believe in events which are neither determined nor arbitrary, whatever that could possibly mean...
In my opinion the whole debate on Free Will is worthless. Whether or not 'it' exists seems pretty irrelevant when nobody can explain what 'it' is specifically. Why normally rational people are unable to equate Free Will with concepts like the soul is beyond me. It's exactly the same. A Phlogiston Theory and nothing more.
"you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want"
Meaning: yes, it's your decision to move or eat. But you have no control over if you WANT to move or eat...and with "want" I don't mean the wish but the "trigger" that actually makes you move and eat exactly at the time when you do it.
I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
On March 06 2012 07:19 koreasilver wrote:. Please read: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the shorter On the miscarraige of all philosophical trials in theodicy by Kant (it's a chapter from a larger work).
Your theodicy is a very elementary one that has been discussed ad naseam that it just isn't worth talking about in this thread, in the way the thread has already moved on. I tell you this as a theology student.
Thanks professor, for giving us a homework assignment instead of contributing to a discussion. You've basically put your elitist hat on and told me I'm childish. You haven't made a single persuasive or non-trivial comment in this entire thread (yes I checked), so why don't we try giving one another real feedback for a change?
How about you start by telling me why my beliefs are untenable? In your own words please.
The argument that you made is hundreds of years old, and for anyone who studies theology / philosophy it's perhaps not the most fresh or interesting subject. Some rudimentary objections to your argument would be:
Gratuitous evil: some evil may be necessary in the world in order for free will to be possible, or, the best possible state of the world may not be entirely free of evil, but does there really need to be as much evil as there actually is in the world? For example, why did 6 million Jews have to die during the Holocaust? Why not 5 million or some smaller but still significant number (it seems churlish, sure, but still...)
Another object would go something like: Couldn't God both give people free will and make them exceptionally good people? Like, couldn't we all have free will but also make more good decisions (or even nothing but good decisions)?
That's only a really amateur I've-taken-a-few-phil-classes stab at some of the objections out there...
The argument that you made is hundreds of years old, and for anyone who studies theology / philosophy it's perhaps not the most fresh or interesting subject. Some rudimentary objections to your argument would be:
Gratuitous evil: some evil may be necessary in the world in order for free will to be possible, or, the best possible state of the world may not be entirely free of evil, but does there really need to be as much evil as there actually is in the world? For example, why did 6 million Jews have to die during the Holocaust? Why not 5 million or some smaller but still significant number (it seems churlish, sure, but still...)
Another object would go something like: Couldn't God both give people free will and make them exceptionally good people? Like, couldn't we all have free will but also make more good decisions (or even nothing but good decisions)?
That's only a really amateur I've-taken-a-few-phil-classes stab at some of the objections out there...
Thank you for at least expressing some tangible kind of disagreement. Personally I have some responses to those issues, and if you'd like to pursue the discussion I'd be happy to tell you. I'm posting now just to say that I appreciate this kind of discourse, rather than a knee-jerk "go read more theology noob" statement.
On March 06 2012 06:48 mcc wrote:But as far as I can tell in the multiple universe interpretation the universe diverges when quantum events occur, not when people make choices. Since our choices are macroscopic in nature and thus well "shielded" from quantum events, the universes do not actually diverge on our choices.
True, the consequences of a choice are a macroscopic event, but each macroscopic event is made of a large number of unitary quantum events (unless you are in a macroscopic quantum state, like a black hole or a superfluid, in which case I don't really know how you type your answers).
"shielding", you are thinking of decorrelation, but it is not the sole event type that creates different states in a multiple universe.
Universe still diverges in the absence of choice, but it also does when people make choices. Only requirement is that at least 1 physically coherent path allows each choice. (if I make a choice between posting this reply and turning into a jet to crash into the sun, there is probably no universe where I actually get to dance with the sunny chicks on the crash site, although ... <concentrates>)
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
But if any state of the mind is a state of neurons and if neurons only follow the laws of physic, there cannot be a free will. If free will is just an illusion, we can discuss it as if it is a real thing, while in fact there still is no free will in the sense that you decide freely. (Free in which sense? You decide what seems best to you.)
On March 06 2012 05:25 liberal wrote: In this thread, people who really, really want to believe that humans have some sort of mystical undefined "choice" and really want to be able to judge people for their behavior go through psychological jumping jacks and philosophical loop-de-loops to try and find some fault with logic itself in order to justify believing in something that has zero evidence and defies common sense.
It's the classic "god of the gaps" syndrome. Any area where there is even a shred of doubt, suddenly becomes the justification for embracing the most illogical and unjustified notions. This type of reasoning goes hand in hand with the "you can't prove X DOESN'T exist" type of arguments. The possibility of something being true is all they need to fully embrace it. If you can't prove there isn't a typewriter on mars, then we can choose to believe there is one, without any psychological qualms.
Which is why discussions even remotely related to religion always break down; you cannot reason with people who are intent on being unreasonable. You either seek truths based upon reason, evidence, and plausibility, or you seek ideas which make you feel comfortable with the world around you. Obviously no individual is a bastion of objectivity, but clearly some people are closer than others, and such people should recognize when they are fighting an unwinnable battle.
I have to disagree with you here. I don't think you know a lot about history and how the basics of logic and mind where "invented" in the classical antiquity. The same with the importance of mathematics and science in modern history. Our modern world view is very influenced by those concepts, but they're not the only and mb not even very accurate. They don't embody absolute truth. Let me explain that: Logic says: a thing cant be both, static and moved / free and determined, at least not at the same time and in the same regard. But first this presumes a physicalist world view in which physical things and objects exist, and second I don't think there has ever been a pyhscial thing that was static. Everything is constantly in motion. Our will could be determined and free at the same time, maybe partly determined, partly free. Our logic does not apply to the world itsself, its just concepts we impose on the world. We gotta agree on some things for practical reasons, but we shouldnt overspan our agreements. Causality for example is something most people agree on, but we should never overspan causality to possible experience that has yet to be made. Causality is a regulative principle and should never be made a constitutive principle. Our everyday talk and experience, for example, is a hint that we presume free will every day. The only way for a human beeing to act is by presuming its free. It's part of what makes humans human. In a certain sense, because humans can only act by presuming they're free, that kinda makes them free, at least in relation to practical experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism Unless we first define very exactly what the concept free will means, and even then, we might never come to an agreement. As I said, a will that would be totally independent from everything else could be free, but it could never be what I would call MY free will. Because to be MY will, my history and feelings and thought have(!) to have an influence and partly determine MY will. Freedom is not lawlessness, but a law.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
I feel like you have a very muddled idea what what people mean when they say free will. It has nothing to do with debate, or communication, or learning about the outside world... I could program a computer to do all of those things, and it wouldn't require volition.
Our emotions are untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean that we can disregard all thought that humans experience. I often feel like I'm "choosing" my actions, but if I stop and think about it, I realize there are things in my past and things in my biology and things in my environment which actually determined what decision I was going to make. You can't draw some arbitrary line and say "well we have free will until we are insane, or until we suffer a head injury, or until we are conditioned by society, or until we discover a brain tumor, or until we ingest a drug..." Doing so is just avoiding the undeniable truth, that human behavior is DETERMINED by processes outside of our control, and therefore the illusion of control over our own behavior is false.
The ONLY thing preventing absolutely everyone from rejecting the notion of free will is ignorance. We are ignorant of what is causing our own or others behavior, and so because we can't explain it we jump into simplistic metaphysical notions. In the past, our ignorance caused us to believe that mental illness was caused by demon possession, and that lightning was caused by a man in the sky throwing down bolts, and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is only a matter of time before neuroscience advances enough to reveal how absurd and childish our belief in free choice actually is.
And honestly, I don't think it even requires scientific advancement. All it requires is a common sense understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to something being caused or uncaused in the universe. That's all it takes. Just try and imagine an alternative, it's not possible for the human mind to fathom such a thing. To the degree something is caused, it is determined, and therefore not choice. To the degree something is uncaused, it is arbitrary, and therefore not choice. People are going through all sorts of psychological tricks in order to ignore this fact which I consider undeniable.
Is there free will? Yeah, probably, in the same way there's probably no God. We can't disprove it, but... lots of evidence points towards not needing God (or a lack of free will) to explain things.
I feel that there are only two options: predetermination and free will. If we can't agree on that, I'm open to arguments, but given that assumption, I see it rather absurd that free will couldn't be the truth.
My thinking is that human decisions are made based on the chemical compositions of our brains at the moment of a decision. There's a certain randomness to chemistry, what my old chem teacher used to call "the X-Factor" -- that is, that strange nature of chemistry that results in the same experiment, repeated over and over and over again, yielding slightly different results each time. Anyone with a rudimentary chemistry education will understand that it's not quite an exact science, and relies on factors such as entropy, which is actually defined as randomness.
So there's absolutely no way to predict exactly what decision someone will make, even giving the chemistry of their mind at the time, without having fundamental control of the very basics of chemistry; the orientations of particles, their PRECISE amounts, even the statistics behind quantum mechanics. It's all a lot to deal with.
If there's nothing in the universe that possess such control, then there's surely not predetermination to human actions -- thus, the only remaining option is free will, as I stated.
As a side note, the universe could technically be a simulation -- we have nothing at all to suggest one way or the other that we are or aren't. If we are it would likely very easy for our simulators to control us perfectly, though the act of doing so is a little tedious and I wouldn't expect they'd go through the trouble to detail plans for each and every one of us. You need only to look at our own simulations of life, rudimentary as they may be, to see how arduous and unnecessary it is to predetermine the lives of each simulation.
To preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will.
I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case.
As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The laws of physics do no such thing. They are just descriptions of causal relationships that repeat themselves. At no point can science claim that these laws actually govern anything. They're just the best explanations we can come up with right now. You have made the error of equating scientific theories with objective, certain truth, when they have no stronger a claim to that than a priest.
Feel free to take your philosophical escapade to the next level by reading up on Hume's problem of induction. If you would rather I explain the problem to you, do let me know. Not to mention the whole slew of sceptical arguments of which those who use science in this way seem blissfully oblivious.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I had a very similar discussion today with a colleague. This was one of his arguments. I still cannot see how it is a valid one.
What is a free agency? What means free? Free from what? Free from physical laws? Hardly. The nerve cells in the brain don't know what they are thinking about, they just transmit signals. Where is the free agency which allows you to author your free will?
The complexity of our brain allows us to appreciate art, a good Starcraft game, or discuss Sam Harris' latest book. I still fail to see how the philosophical concept of free will can define "free" in this sense.
Influenced by Dan Dannett, I recently began to think about the concept of a concept. Our brain is able to use concepts as a description with shared properties. We could have a concept of free will while there is no free will.
Like right now. You chose to respond to me. You chose to type certain words. Even if you were reacting to stimuli, there was nothing compelling you to 1) read 2) respond by typing 3) respond coherently. And furthermore respond to an argument about how the nature of the universe works.
It's not a freedom from physical laws so much as there is a conscious will that is able to make decisions- and we can learn a lot about the brain from brain activity. We can tell that you are dreaming based on brain activity, we can tell that you are thinking. But we actually have to talk to you to find out what the dream was or what you were specifically thinking about. We react to stimuli, our body operates within physical laws, we have fight or flight responses. All true. But we also discover, create, theorize, choose to play a video game, choose to create a video game, choose to hack a video game, choose create art, choose to appreciate art, choose to critique art, or choose to vandalize art.
If we have a concept of free will despite there being no free will than it is a very powerful delusion. It's impossible to even go to work without operating under the assumption of free will. When the alarm goes, will you hit snooze? When you get up what will you wear, what will you eat? Will you eat? Will you go to work at all? Will pick the shortest route, will you speed? Will you run a red light or stop? Will you drive in the opposite lane? Will you drive on the sidewalk? Will you drive off the bridge? Hundreds of decisions, some of them rote, some based on the past, some of them more urgent. And if any point you stop to try and explain how this is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual then you have made the choice to stop and think about how it is all deterministic/ random/ instinctual. And then you can choose to think about how you are thinking about your thinking...
The concept of free will so dominates the way we live our lives that it would be impossible to function without it. And if it is a delusion then it is such a great delusion, that we have no reason to trust any other of observations of sight, smell, etc because it is all filtered through this entirely deluded brain of ours. So we have no way knowing whether our universe is deterministic because our means of knowing is faulty. And certainly something like emotions can be faulty. But my argument that this is SUCH a great delusion that it throws our entire thought process into question.
On March 06 2012 07:36 Falling wrote: I don't understand how people can say there is no free will and then proceed to argue about it. The very act of debating arguing requires free agency.
I strongly believe than any philosophical system needs to somehow account for consciousness and free will. Simply because we operate so extensively under the assumption of both of these (even the act of typing out these words) that to not have either would be such a strong delusion that one would have to entirely discount our very thoughts as being untrustworthy.
If our thoughts are so untrustworthy how can we trust how our thought processes that lead us to conclude that the universe is deterministic? We used free agency to even consider that the universe is deterministic. We used free agency to discover the laws that govern our universe and to discover how the neurons in our brain fire. Eliminating free will (and by extension consciousness) in its entirety undermines the very premise.
Certainly there are outside, external factors that our beyond our control and that to an extent limit our free will as it were. Depression, for instance, is not simply a matter of willing oneself to snap out of it. Bipolar II can be inherited and triggered. But to engage in any meaningful discussion with any person, we take for granted that we are not pre-determined firings of neurons and chemicals and being nothing more than a process of cause and effect started however many years ago.
Somehow the sum of our cells is more than simply the physical cause and effect, somehow there is a sort of free agency that can choose one choice or another. Whatever one might say as to the source (or lack thereof) of morality, we certainly have the capability of choosing from a variety of possible actions.
Else even participating in this debate is the very height of foolishness. An assortment of cells operating in such a way so as to create the illusion of debate.
Except we don't have to decide one way or another. As long as you think it's possible that free will* exists you will act as if it did, in every situation.
*I mean the kind of free will that's incompatible with determinism, not fake-free will.
scene from waking life about free will. pretty good movie if you guys haven't seen it. i think this topic should be raised more in the debate with religion as it seems the basis of it yet how can someone be judged if they had no control over their actions in the first place?
EPT
