Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 16

= February 16 =

Biblical truths
Are there ANY?--31.92.250.145 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "truth". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one thinking this sounds like some variant of a horribly Loaded question? Eliyohub (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're not. However, I doubt anyone disputes the idea that the later Israelite kings were tributaries of the Assyrians, for example (see the account on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III) or the presence of Assyrian annals discussing the conquest of Samaria by Shalmaneser V and Sargon II, and the sentence beginning with "Indeed" (in Shalmaneser's article) makes it sound as if the cited book is depending on extrabiblical sources for its commentary about the Egyptians.  Also see Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome and the Lachish Letters (in comparison with Jeremiah 34:7), together with assorted statements about geography and the natural world, e.g. comments about the topography of Palestine in the historical books and the famous Proverbs reference about the ant's diligence in gathering food.  Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Babylonian captivity is also generally accepted to have happened. See also Historicity of the Bible. Now, that said, "truth" can have different meanings depending on context. Even non-Christians (for example, Gandhi) have sometimes lauded moral teachings in the Bible, e.g. the Golden Rule and turn the other cheek. For that matter, most Christians don't hold to Biblical inerrancy; not all Christians believe that everything described in the Bible is an actual historical event. If the original questioner could elaborate, we could give more specific answers. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Historians think it fairly likely that guy named Jesus walked around the middle east, preaching stuff, at roughly the time the bible says he did: Historicity of Jesus. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Does Science Agree With the Bible?" at https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What is truth? Jesting Pilate AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Funeral procession and religion of the decease
In state funerals of monarchs does the ordering of the clergymen have any symbolism to the decease's religion? In the case of Hawaii, I've noticed in Lunalilo's funeral procession Rev. Parker, a Congregationalist, stands closer to the casket while in Kalakaua's funeral the Anglican bishop stands closer to the casket.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thumb|Funeral of Lunalilo
 * thumb|Funeral of Kalakaua
 * My guess would be, maybe, but only maybe. It certainly would be possible, like with Richard Nixon, that a minister of a faith not his own, like Billy Graham, might be among his closest friends and get priority of placement in his funeral. There will also be questions as to who is and is not there at any given funeral, possibly for health reasons, having to be elsewhere, etc. Also, I suppose, there may be issues regarding who is considered the "highest ranking" clergy in the procession, so maybe a Catholic archbishop might be before an Anglican bishop even if the decedent were an Anglican. In general, I think you would probably be better off considering who speaks at the funeral as being an indicator of the beliefs of a decedent. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And perhaps whose church the service is being held in? Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And the answer is likely to vary depending on whether the relevant state has an established church or not. According to our article the Anglican Church of Hawaii was an established church from 1862 to 1893, but Kawaiahaʻo Church suggests a continued tussle for influence between the Anglican and Congregational churches during that period. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed: this recent Refdesk thread has some detail about the power struggle between Anglicans and other Protestants at that time. The problem seems to have been that the Church of England sent out clergy with such extreme views that even the local Anglicans wanted rid of them. Alansplodge (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Authoritarian regimes that are centrist
Is a centrist authoritarian regime possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you define "centrist"? And what would be your concept of how a centrist dictator would operate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean an authoritarian regime that does not overtly pursue either a socialist or a conservative agenda, Putin's Russia and Singapore come to mind. However, from the perspective of a Western liberal democracy, any one party state that uses authoritarian means to maintain that system is in one sense by its nature conservative, and therefore right wing, in that it has an active agenda of maintianing a particular political order. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence the 1980s commentators who referred to the old "left-wing" characters running the USSR as "conservative" - in the sense of keeping the status quo. That's a more proper use of "conservative", as opposed to the lists of what "liberals" and "conservatives" respectively believe in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there are at least three different ways of classifying "left" and "right", and people often use the same labels to mean any of them. There's "more free" vs "less free", "more eqaul" vs "less equal", and "more change" vs "less change". Someone who defends an established, unequal and authoritarian system, even if that system calls itself "Socialist", is very similar to someone who defends an established, unequal and authoriatrian but feudal system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of those three classifications, the most controversial might be just what "free" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In authoritarian or totalitarian socialist settings (i.e. leftist political philosophy, but oppressive regimes), to avoid the confusions noted above, the term hardline is often used; "Hardline Communist" was used frequently during the 1980s to describe Soviet politicians opposed to liberalizing reforms. -- Jayron 32 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Salazar? Asmrulz (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither Franco nor Salazar were centrist.  They both targeted the left.   They were certainly regarded as rightist at the time, and Franco had backing from Hitler and Mussolini. 86.148.119.30 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Non-ideological dictators do exist, they are usually fueled by cult of personality rather than adherence to a political ideology (either left or right). For example, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party held positions on both the right (Arab Nationalism) and the left (Arab socialism).  -- Jayron 32 17:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article: "One of his radical left-wing supporters, Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu from the Kadro (The Cadre) movement, claimed that Mustafa Kemal found a third way between capitalism and socialism." 208.95.51.115 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia actually has an article on the Third Way, and while many of the leaders listed as examples there are from democratic systems, some like Muammar Gaddafi, are clearly from authoritarian ones. -- Jayron 32 19:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the position of the centre may vary a lot from country to country. From a Western democracy, Russia's government looks clearly right wing - it's built on nationalism and cutting business regulation, and its social policies seem very illiberal. However, United Russia presents itself as Russia's political middle ground, and one of Putin's strategies is to cultivate extremist political opponents in order to make himself look pragmatic by comparison (see, eg, the liberal candidate at the last presidential election, who happened to be close to the Kremlin). United Russia's main opponents are the Communist Party and the basically-fascist Liberal Democratic Party (neither liberal, nor very democratic), and compared to them Putin seems like a voice of centrist reason. Smurrayinchester 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, really the whole "Left-center-right" philosophy only makes sense in the context of a Eurocentric world view, where "right" means "fascist" and left means "communist" and center means "social democracy". In the U.S., the terms mean something different, where "right" means "business-friendly christian theocracy" and "left" means "civil rights and civil liberties" and center means "Bill Clinton".  As can be inferred from the article Left–right politics at Wikipedia, the terms ONLY make contextual sense in Western Europe and the U.S.  That's why political figures such as Hussein and Gaddafi and Putin and Ataturk and so many other non-Western leaders defy categorization on such a scheme.  They do not come from political systems built on such dialectics, so we're trying to apply definitions to political systems where they do not apply.  -- Jayron 32 18:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

See Politics of Singapore. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Political Compass considers Hitler (and I think Fascism in general) to have been authoritarian centrist. Source.  (The site defines left/right in economic terms, and the Nazis and Facists were in favour of business working with the state, rather than either nationalizing all business (as Socialists advocate) or allowing a completely deregulated free-for-all (as advocated by economic libertarians)). Iapetus (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's one way to do it, but "left-right" are also often defined on terms of social equity terms; right being "nationalistic" and left being "inclusive" in terms of a regime's attitude towards ethnicity. Hitler falls clearly to the right on those terms.  Far right is certainly defined in those terms, and under that, Naziism is far right.  -- Jayron 32 12:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deputy representatives in Norwegian parliament
Does anyone know how deputy representatives are selected for Norewgian parliament? The main article at Storting explains how regular representatives come to sit at the Storting (by way of elections), but makes no mention of how deputy reps are selected - whether also by election, like some kind of running mate, or by appointment from the elected rep, or by the party's general choice. I've probably just missed the information someplace obvious but a hand would be great. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article you linked says "If a member of parliament cannot serve (for instance because he or she is a member of the cabinet), a deputy representative serves instead. The deputy is the candidate from the same party who was listed on the ballot immediately behind the candidates who were elected in the last election." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely scrolled right past that. Thanks. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If an accused asks for a lawyer
If an accused asks for a lawyer. Can it be used as evidence of his guilt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.145.73 (talk • contribs)
 * A question like this requires the information "Where?" since the laws differ from one location to another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In which jurisdiction? -- Jayron 32 16:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * UK and US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.145.73 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * More enlightened jurisdictions (such as Britain) offer a lawyer when somebody is arrested. 86.148.119.30 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In the United States, it cannot (at least in the Second, Sixth, First and 10th circuits. It hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court.) Smurrayinchester 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have an article Right to counsel. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because "Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law". However such purported evidence may be readily dismissed (in the US) by citing "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". Blooteuth (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, except no. As mentioned right above you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In Canada the answer to the original question would be no. Some years ago there was a case where a number of babies were believed to have been murdered. The police had a limited number of suspects and simply arrested the one who asked for a lawyer. Her case was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence and she won a suit for malicious prosecution. (Nobody was ever convicted for the deaths and it was later suggested, but also not proved, that they were accidental.) See Toronto hospital baby deaths. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dunno if this is relevant, but where police do get somewhat alarmed and taken aback is when they approach someone asking for a witness statement (as in, the police do not consider the person a suspect), and the person refuses to talk without getting legal advice first. This is unusual, and can raise alarms. I read in our local paper of a police officer saying it concerned him a lot when he had this occur (it was very unusual, and meant something was likely amiss). I don't have a way of tracking down the exact article, though. Eliyohub (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Later Wittgenstein on causality
I've been (recently) told that Wittgenstein, in Philosophical Investigations, criticises the idea of causation in some sense. However, I am confused by the literature that I have read on the matter. In as much as I have understood any of it, he seems to be distinguishing reasons from causes, whilst what I was told seemed to have scientific implications. Could someone direct me to what he (is believed by some to have) meant?--Leon (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, is there any philosophical literature critiquing causality as a concept in science, other than with reference to the induction problem?--Leon (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I always head straight to the SEP for this kind of thing. Their page on Wittgenstein's Aesthetics  discusses cause a bit, and his views. As for the second, you might like their article on the Metaphysics of Causation, Counterfactual theories of Causation , or really any of their pages about causation, here: . SemanticMantis (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just read the one on Wittgenstein's Aesthetics, and am a bit bemused. He appears to be criticising reductionism, but I fail to understand his reasoning.


 * Perhaps I should clarify my (mis)understanding with a question: might Wittgenstein have said that there is no system of physics in which the aesthetic responses, for all time of all individuals, could be determined with certainty? Or is he criticising a more "naive" reductionism?--Leon (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know how to provide philosophy refs, but I'm no good at synthesizing or explaining it. Sorry, hope someone else can take it from here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is in charge of a factory?
Who owns the factory? What is the actual job title? Is the factory owner also the designer of the automated machines? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, factories are owned by corporations by and large, though under communist systems they would be owned by the state. We covered design of machines in the last question you asked on this subject, so please re-read it.  Under corporate ownership, a factory is an asset, and as the corporation is owned by its shareholders, they would be the ultimate owners.  As far as management of the factory, of course the shareholders in a corporation do not themselves directly manage the corporation, instead the shareholders hire people to do so; corporate governance is an article which covers how that works.  As far as management of an individual factory goes, it is hierarchical.  Every company will do it their own way, but most will have some sort of hierarchy whereby workers are managed by supervisors who themselves are governed by managers who are then governed by executives.  A factory would probably not have an on-site executive, but would probably have a head manager who would be ultimately responsible for the entire site; usually this would be called the general manager.  -- Jayron 32 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some factories are ancient (pre-historic) and certainly there were organised factories in Roman times that were all manual, but that we would recognise today as being factories: a number of workers did the same tasks each day, making a single product on one site and making profits for a single owner. Mostly though, we regard "factories" as really becoming major ways of manufacturing from the start of the 18th century, simultaneous with the development of capitalism (in the sense of shared investment in capital facilities). So their history is recorded by the writers of capitalism, such as Adam Smith (and his 'pin factory') and Samuel Smiles. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not so common now, but factories can be owned by individuals. The owners may or may not be involved in the running of them. They can have whatever job title they want. --ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even master of his/her domain. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The current usage of the word "factory" is a shortened from of "manufactory". An older usage of "factory" meant a trading station: see Factory (trading post). That type of factory was run by a factor. -Arch dude (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In the early days of the industrial revolution in England, a wealthy individual often built a factory and then ran it. This was more or less a continuation of the way grist mills, smithys, and tanneries were established. -Arch dude (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If a factory is owned by an individual (either directly or through a corporation or other entity), then the individual may be referred to as an industrialist, although the term is somewhat dated and it is more common now just to say "business owner" or a similar term. Single-owner factories are actually pretty common, especially for smaller factories, although the owner almost always owns a corporation, limited liability company, or other vehicle that is the formal owner of the factory.  It would be quite unusual for the factory owner also to be the designer of the automated machines.  John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But such an English factory would be owned by one person, yet they would be heavily in debt at the time to their bankers, who had loaned the money to first build the factory. Few grew gradually and could afford to fund their own capital investment entirely themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Modern factories are far too large and complex to be owned by a single person. The capital necessary to design, build, and maintain such a facility is such that it doesn't make any sense for one person to do it.  this article indicates that an automobile factory costs about $1.6 billion to make.  While there are people who are that rich, the financial liability of such an endeavor makes more sense for a limited liability corporation to do so.  -- Jayron 32 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember that factories come in all sizes. There are plenty of factories with no more than a few dozen workers, and it's quite common for such factories to be owned by an individual (although the individual may interpose a corporation or limited liability company for tax and other reasons).  John M Baker (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the world's largest factories are owned by one person (or a family trust on their behalf). This is rare, and more common in countries such as Russia and SE Asia, but this is how some of the world's super-rich came to be so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do humans believe that they have free will?
If Homo sapiens descended from Homo erectus, then does that mean that Homo erectus also had free will? Do chimpanzees and other apes have free will? How do you test free will? Or is free will exclusive to humans? Do anencephalous babies have free will? Is there a difference between having free will and having a biochemical preference/avoidance for something? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * These are not easy questions for a simple one paragraph answer. The problem of free will has been one of the core aspects of study for the branch of knowledge known as philosophy and discussions of it, and thoughts about it can be found as far back as ancient Greek philosophy.  You are NOT going to get a "correct" answer here that will tie everything up for you in a simple paragraph, philosophy does not have incontrovertible answers as a subject like math would.  Instead, the best we can do is to direct you to some reading on what some of the better respected thinkers and writers in the field have to say on the matter.  Actually, even that would stretch on for pages.  What you really want to do if you wish to know more about this subject, is start with a few Wikipedia articles, follow their links, and also find their sources, and read from the wealth of knowledge on this topic.  It is huge and there is a LOT of ideas out there.  I would use as my starting points articles like free will and perhaps concepts like sentience and sapience and the hard problem of consciousness all of which are closely aligned to studies of free will.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * SEP has a nice article on free will, here . SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action." Given that, it's hard to know to what extent our hominid ancestors had it. Whether any living creature qualifies, would have to be inferred from behavior, since they don't talk to us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So a thermostat has free will? And a self-driving car has free will? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do they choose what they do? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. They do. A self driving car chooses when to accelerate, when to brake, and where to steer. By you definition, it has free will. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not my definition, the definition in the free will article. How do you know the machine "chooses" to do something, as opposed to merely doing what it's programmed to do? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know Baseball Bugs or Nil Einne or Guy Macon or 66.213.29.17 "chooses" to do something, as opposed to merely doing what they're programmed to do? Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you choose to post, or were you programmed to do it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How do I know? Isn't that why I asked? Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it feel like you're programmed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) when introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE) originally meant lack of necessity in human will, i.e. "the will does not have to be such as it is." Thomas Hobbes claimed that a person is acting on the person's own will only when it is the desire of that person to do the act, and also possible for the person to be able to do otherwise, if the person had decided to. Baruch Spinoza thought that there is no free will, like Arthur Schopenhauer who stated, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." Rudolf Steiner argued that inner freedom is achieved only when we bridge the gap between our sensory impressions, which reflect the outer appearance of the world, and our thoughts, which give us access to the inner nature of the world. William James believed in free will as an ethical, metaphysical issue, but that there is no evidence for it on scientific grounds. Thomas Aquinas viewed humans as pre-programmed (by virtue of being human) to seek certain goals, but able to choose between routes to achieve these goals; for him free-will is an "appetitive power", that is, not a cognitive power of intellect. To the extent that free will is identified with Culpability (for intentional harmful acts) it is impractical to ascribe it to extinct hominids, non-human animals, or to anencephalous babies who notwithstanding temporary brain stem reflexes are arguably brain dead. Blooteuth (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there an example of a "given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Burning alive? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By his own will? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Willing to jump into water (if some's available) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hard to do if they've tied you to a stake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For Schopenhauer whose opinion is questioned here, will is not a product of the intellect and is instead pror to intellect; he felt this is like puruṣārtha or goals of life in Vedānta Hinduism. It is unnecessary to limit a test of this view to an extreme situation because Schopenhauer is specific that it applies to "any moment". The burning person simply wills to be out of the fire, the prime directive is single-valued and unmalleable. An operation of conscious intellect that produces one or more volitions or mental reflections may follow but they occupy not the instant but a subsequent moment. Incidentally, Schopenhauer criticized Spinoza's attitude towards animals as "mere things for our use" and held that since every living thing possesses will, humans and animals are fundamentally the same and can recognize themselves in each other. Blooteuth (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes your ability to choose is taken away from you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like Schopenhauer meant that every moment of your life is like that (and Blooteuth just confirmed he did). I always choose the action that seems best at the time, and I don't get to choose which action seems best. Choosing a sub-optimal action sometimes, just to demonstrate that I have free will, doesn't work because it becomes a better choice in light of my goal of demonstrating my free will. -- BenRG (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but sometimes I just don't care but have to choose one. Do I buy the Soft and Fluffy® pillow or the Fluffy and Soft® pillow? They look and cost exactly the same but my only pillow was just vaporized by antimatter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not caring is also a choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But if I am given one full pre-spun revolver loaded with identical rounds and would be freed if I play 3 fair turns of Russian Roulette within 5 mins and execute if I don't then I do care but the choices of which bullet to leave in are equally optimal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Caring is different from not caring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd care because of the high chance of shooting myself but optimality would not be part of it (because I'd couldn't predict which are the right ones to take out since Russian Roulette involves randomizing and if they got some pleasure in placing a dud in the position they found people removed the most or some other psych-out like that then they wouldn't spin it before giving me so I don't have to worry about game theory). Nonetheless you can leave this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one, lots of choices that you do care about without them being forced on you from one seeming best at the time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In the scenario you describe, your free will has been compromised. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not completely. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're being held captive, as your scenario indicates, then your free will has been taken away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. You still get to think, to feel, to hope, to want and to plan.  Your ability to execute your plans is hindered, that's all.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article calls free will the ability to choose. In your own mind, you could choose to turn into Superman and become invulnerable to nearly everything. But since you can't actually do that, you're left with what's possible to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You shuld read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, in which he demonstrates that people incarcerated (in his case in a Nazi concentration camp) have a much better chance of surviving if they actively mentally choose to be there rather than just resentfully raging, railing and resisting it at every moment. That's free will, if anything is.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Making the best of a bad situation." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's also the theme of the 1997 film La Vita è Bella. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The argument the OP makes: if humans have free will, then "humans minus something" also have free will, and so on until you're left with just one cell (a zygote) -- how can a zygote have a free will??? -- is a classical example of Sorites paradox.  This stems from classical vagueness problem .  To cite, In the vast majority of cases, the unknowability of a borderline statement is only relative to a given means of settling the issue.  That is, a ton of sand is a sandpile, and one grain of sand is not a sandpile; but a physical criterion ("a means to settle an issue") can be devised to say when there is enough grains of sand to form a sandpile. Same here: come up with a psychophysical experiment that demonstrates conscious choice (as in Stanford marshmallow experiment for example) and you'll see what animal (or what age human child) is or is not capable of conscious choice. Beware that an ability to make a conscious choice doesn't equal "free will", though.  However, it is better defined than a free will. For an in-depth discussion of a free will please see .  Dr Dima (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience, arguments about free will often fail to get anywhere, because people don't define their terms at the start, and then start arguing for/against completely different things without realizing. I can think of at least three commonly used definitions of "free will":


 * 1) "Agency": the capacity to act, free of coercion.  By this definition, if someone is forced by another person to do something, or prevented from doing something, they would not be acting out of "free will".
 * 2) The capacity to think and make your own decisions, regardless of whether you can actually act on them.  I.e. your thoughts and decisions are not pre-programmed, not determined by a rules table, and not the result of hypnotism, mind control, predestination, God controlling your thoughts, etc.
 * 3) The ability to control the functioning of the neurons in your brain, and the atoms and subatomic particles that make them up.  (I don't think I've seen anyone give this definition explicitly, but it seems to be implied by most of the "free will doesn't exist because your thoughts depend on the physical state of your neurons" arguments I've seen.
 * In my experience, most of the time that ordinary people talk about "free will", they are using the first or second definitions. Most dictionaries I've look in use a similar definition too.  e.g. Oxford Dictionaries: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."  I would think that by this definition, humans do have free will.  Whether prehumans or non-humans had/have it too I don't know - as Dr Dima says above, the boundary is probably fuzzy, and (in my non-expert opinion, probably related to Self-awareness.  Conversely, in my experience, arguments against free will tend to either use definitions of "free will" that don't match normal use of the term, or depend on unprovable and non-scientific concepts such as fate or predestination Iapetus (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The sciences and the humanities do not necessarily operate within the same frameworks. Are we speaking about the human concept of free will or the scientific concept of cause and effect? Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)