Let's Talk About Free Will...

[Leksandar]

Every single thing you do, you do for a reason. And it's all choices -- everywhere. Even when you do trivial things such as ordering coffee, buying a cell phone or not eating the chocolate bar you catch a glimpse of while looking through the drawers in your kitchen for something to put your teeth in. We can all agree on that, right?

But how do you fit the free will liberal thought bases itself on in here? To make an example, when you chose to order a cup of coffee, it's not unprovoked. It might be because your parents always did and you because of this feel it's what a person such as yourself should do too, or perhaps you used to date a girl that liked the atmosphere of coffee shops and got you addicted or any complicated mix of elements such as these -- maybe even some you've inherited genetically, but however you put it, there's never any sign of any magical force such as free will there. It's just a calculation. Cause and effect.

Now, I'm not insisting that the universe is deterministic as quantum mechanics pretty much rule that out as a scientific claim, but there's still not any room for any free will. So if you're rich it's just chance. Your actions, results of millions of calculations, further interacting with your surroundings. Meaning that if you end up as a poor drug using thief or an industrial magnate, it's not your doing -- just chance.

I understand the religious point of view, though I still don't mind hearing them, but not the atheist, so-called liberal one. If all people are equal, and this is an important building stone of liberal thought, isn't it natural for the luckier to even it out by also supporting the unluckier? Imagine a multiplayer fighting game where everyone starts with a random amount of strength. Is that fair? Shouldn't the developers, the politicians, try to even it out if both the players are meant to have the same amount of fun -- are worth the same? Because I'd never want to play such a game if I had any choice, even if I ended up with twice as much strength as my opponent.

Also.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/974...osoraptorp.png

And why was the holocaust so bad when humankind murders six billion animals every year? With no soul or free will, nothing makes us superior to them. The animals have got nervous system's too, as well as a calculator or a mind if you'd like, albeit a less complicated one, but they still feel the same things as us. They're just not able to express it in the same way as us.

The typical answer is that we're stronger than the animals and thus should eat them because they would eat us if they were in our position. But wasn't that exactly what the nazis were saying about jews too?

Discuss why I'm wrong about there being no free will and/or what the consequences of there being no free will is.

[Tiffany]

Hmm... I personally don't think that if you end up rich or end up poor that its chance. I suppose you could argue this to the bone, as in... well it isn't chance if you took your buisness degree and worked your way to the top, you chose to do so! Or instead while in university you by chance happen to fall into the wrong crowd and totally waste your life away.

I think its a mixture of both. I'm a firm believer in "Make Your Own Destiny" mentality. Meaning if you want it, you need to take the steps to set things in action to get it. If I want to be a CEO of a swanky business one day, it isn't going to happen if I sit on my ass in front of my couch all day. Although, chance plays a part too. I have a relative who is a multi-millionaire, (who doesn't talk to us anymore, FML ) he was a vice-president of a very well to do company.

How did he get in there? He plays golf.

Seriously. He became a VP because he played golf and while on the course started chatting with the right people at the right time and got into business with them. So yeah, chance (IMO) definitely plays a part too!

As for the animals/holocaust:

I don't think you can draw a parallel tbh. Although it depends. Are the millions of animals you are speaking of the ones that we kill to eat? To me that's part of the food chain, and yes... I loves me some steak. I don't like thinking of the process mind you, but the animal served a purpose. It gave nourishment and provided me with energy. Sure, I could eat some peanuts and lentils and get the same effect, but it doesn't taste as good.

I don't see how that is like the Nazi's killing the Jews. That's just because they didn't like them. Having a member of the Nazi party killing anyone wasn't for actual benefit (you can argue that they were trying to benefit the world by ridding everyone of the Jewish population... but I'm talking about actual, physical benefit).

But, if you are talking about the millions of animals that are killed for blood sport or for the sake of killing, then yes... I guess I can see the parallel.

[Leksandar]

Hmm... I personally don't think that if you end up rich or end up poor that its chance. I suppose you could argue this to the bone, as in... well it isn't chance if you took your buisness degree and worked your way to the top, you chose to do so! Or instead while in university you by chance happen to fall into the wrong crowd and totally waste your life away.

I think its a mixture of both. I'm a firm believer in "Make Your Own Destiny" mentality. Meaning if you want it, you need to take the steps to set things in action to get it. If I want to be a CEO of a swanky business one day, it isn't going to happen if I sit on my ass in front of my couch all day. Although, chance plays a part too. I have a relative who is a multi-millionaire, (who doesn't talk to us anymore, FML ) he was a vice-president of a very well to do company.

How did he get in there? He plays golf.

Seriously. He became a VP because he played golf and while on the course started chatting with the right people at the right time and got into business with them. So yeah, chance (IMO) definitely plays a part too!

Well, I still think that it's chance if you took a business degree and worked yourself to the top. Why? Well, why did you choose the business degree? What made you have the values that are needed to get far in this business? As far as I can see, there's no free will involved, it's just you (the calculator), experiencing things (numbers), and adding them together leading to actions (sum). Cause and effect.

Maybe you believe in hard work because you at a particulary, vulnerable moment watched a scene from a movie where a character made a speech where he ascertained such, or perhaps because your father, right before dying, told you working hard was the best way to become successful. However you put it, I still can't see where you're making your own destiny. You're just a ragdoll to your surroundings.

And make note of the fact that your mentality, the one about making your one destiny, isn't one you chose yourself but gained because of your surroundings. A lot of people aren't that lucky.

As for the animals/holocaust:

I don't think you can draw a parallel tbh. Although it depends. Are the millions of animals you are speaking of the ones that we kill to eat? To me that's part of the food chain, and yes... I loves me some steak. I don't like thinking of the process mind you, but the animal served a purpose. It gave nourishment and provided me with energy. Sure, I could eat some peanuts and lentils and get the same effect, but it doesn't taste as good.

Billions actually. Anyway, just like a lot soldiers taken prisoners by the Japanese during the Second World War served their purpose. They contributed to science. Sure, we could take it easy and find more ethically acceptable ways to research whatever you're researching but that would neither satisfy the scientists' human lust for control nor be as fast.

I don't see how that is like the Nazi's killing the Jews. That's just because they didn't like them. Having a member of the Nazi party killing anyone wasn't for actual benefit (you can argue that they were trying to benefit the world by ridding everyone of the Jewish population... but I'm talking about actual, physical benefit).

So you're saying it would had been okay if they actually had any physical benefit of what they were doing to them? I don't understand your logic here. But they did have physical benefits, depending on your definition of it. By concentrating all the hate on the jews, mercilessly killing them, they were able to concentrate the German population's unsatisfaction with their country -- effectively seizing the power. They were also used as labour.

[M16]

Every single thing you do, you do for a reason. And it's all choices -- everywhere. Even when you do trivial things such as ordering coffee, buying a cell phone or not eating the chocolate bar you catch a glimpse of while looking through the drawers in your kitchen for something to put your teeth in. We can all agree on that, right?

But how do you fit the free will liberal thought bases itself on in here? To make an example, when you chose to order a cup of coffee, it's not unprovoked. It might be because your parents always did and you because of this feel it's what a person such as yourself should do too, or perhaps you used to date a girl that liked the atmosphere of coffee shops and got you addicted or any complicated mix of elements such as these -- maybe even some you've inherited genetically, but however you put it, there's never any sign of any magical force such as free will there. It's just a calculation. Cause and effect.

Now, I'm not insisting that the universe is deterministic as quantum mechanics pretty much rule that out as a scientific claim, but there's still not any room for any free will. So if you're rich it's just chance. Your actions, results of millions of calculations, further interacting with your surroundings. Meaning that if you end up as a poor drug using thief or an industrial magnate, it's not your doing -- just chance.

I understand the religious point of view, though I still don't mind hearing them, but not the atheist, so-called liberal one. If all people are equal, and this is an important building stone of liberal thought, isn't it natural for the luckier to even it out by also supporting the unluckier? Imagine a multiplayer fighting game where everyone starts with a random amount of strength. Is that fair? Shouldn't the developers, the politicians, try to even it out if both the players are meant to have the same amount of fun -- are worth the same? Because I'd never want to play such a game if I had any choice, even if I ended up with twice as much strength as my opponent.

Also.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/974...osoraptorp.png

And why was the holocaust so bad when humankind murders six billion animals every year? With no soul or free will, nothing makes us superior to them. The animals have got nervous system's too, as well as a calculator or a mind if you'd like, albeit a less complicated one, but they still feel the same things as us. They're just not able to express it in the same way as us.

The typical answer is that we're stronger than the animals and thus should eat them because they would eat us if they were in our position. But wasn't that exactly what the nazis were saying about jews too?

Discuss why I'm wrong about there being no free will and/or what the consequences of there being no free will is.

You said in your very first paragraph that everything we do is a choice. Even in your coffee shop parallel, your decision to be in the coffee shop to begin with is still a decision. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to be sitting in that coffee shop. Your mind doesn't just shut off, with the exception of the receptors that will eventually lead you to the coffee shop.

For your comparison to someone choosing a business degree, you once again missed the entire point. They chose their degree. They didn't just pick a degree out of a hat and go with it. Not only that, but they didn't also just follow some invisible path to become rich. In fact, most rich people, I would wager, are rich due to their own efforts and not because they just fell, wondrously, into a huge pile of money.

Your analogy about the holocaust is just stupid. What in the world does that have to do with free will? You're trying to compare that to the mass murder of animals? So basically you're comparing Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities to animals? There's a difference between animals and humans. For starters, animals aren't people.

Again, your main flaw is just that you seem to ignore the fact that people have the innate ability to think and make decisions.

[warned post] - Meier.

[Leksandar]

You said in your very first paragraph that everything we do is a choice. Even in your coffee shop parallel, your decision to be in the coffee shop to begin with is still a decision. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to be sitting in that coffee shop. Your mind doesn't just shut off, with the exception of the receptors that will eventually lead you to the coffee shop.

No one's holding a gun to your head, but the choice you've made isn't something you as some kind of holy, self-sufficient being has decided to do from thin air. You're just receiving information from your surroundings and processing them into choices. “You” have no say in the matter. It's just cause and effect. What I'm trying to say is that a calculator shouldn't be punished for the numbers he or she receives, and that we shouldn't eat other types of calculators just because they calculate in different ways.

For your comparison to someone choosing a business degree, you once again missed the entire point. They chose their degree. They didn't just pick a degree out of a hat and go with it.

They chose the degree because their surroundings demanded it. If we were to go back in time and put this business degree person into a dark room with just the necessary food and water, and then let him out as an adult and ask him what kind of degree he wants – do you think he would pick the business degree?

Not only that, but they didn't also just follow some invisible path to become rich. In fact, most rich people, I would wager, are rich due to their own efforts and not because they just fell, wondrously, into a huge pile of money.

These efforts come as a consequence of their upbringing, their surroundings, their culture etc. Also. Someone owning a mine doesn't earn money because he has a mine he has worked hard for. He owns money because people work in the mines. Even though it's his mine; would you really say it's fair that he gets more of the money than all the miners added together just because the miners have no other choice but to work for him? I mean, since everyone's supposedly born equal. I could go farther into how insanely mistaken you are here, as I guarantee you there are just as many people who work hard and aren't rich as there are hard working people who are rich, but I believe this to be enough.

Your analogy about the holocaust is just stupid. What in the world does that have to do with free will? You're trying to compare that to the mass murder of animals? So basically you're comparing Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities to animals? There's a difference between animals and humans. For starters, animals aren't people.

That's just semantics and not an argument, and please don't pull the sentimental minority card on me. I'm not comparing Jews and gypsies to animals. I'm comparing human kind in general to animals. Since there is nothing to separate us from animals, the lack of a nerve system and consciousness separates us from plants and bacteria, there is in my opinion no difference between killing a human and killing an animal.

Again, your main flaw is just that you seem to ignore the fact that people have the innate ability to think and make decisions.

This innate ability, which animals also have by the way, is just the ability to process information received from your surroundings. Thinking is just playing with the influences you've received, not picking original thoughts out of thin air.

[Sasquatch]

No one's holding a gun to your head, but the choice you've made isn't something you as some kind of holy, self-sufficient being has decided to do from thin air.

Is it a choice, or is it not? If it's a choice, it IS something we all make. If it's not a choice -- if nothing is a choice -- then what's the point? You didn't "choose" to come here and post, nobody "chose" to reply to you? Then what's the point of any reactions?

So here's a question: If I go kill somebody, why punish me, if my surroundings made me do it?

What I'm trying to say is that a calculator shouldn't be punished for the numbers he or she receives, and that we shouldn't eat other types of calculators just because they calculate in different ways.

So you're a vegan?

They chose the degree because their surroundings demanded it.

Their surroundings didn't "demand" anything. They might have "suggested", sure, but didn't "demand".

If we were to go back in time and put this business degree person into a dark room with just the necessary food and water, and then let him out as an adult and ask him what kind of degree he wants – do you think he would pick the business degree?

They might. Of course, another type of education might suit them better, but it's all in what they choose. There are pros and cons to every choice, we just must weigh every option.

These efforts come as a consequence of their upbringing, their surroundings, their culture etc.

If that was the case, everybody with similar upbringings and similar surroundings and similar culture would make the same (or similar) choices to every situation. I don't see my entire neighborhood working towards the same educational goals I am, nor does my entire neighborhood make the same choices I do.

Also. Someone owning a mine doesn't earn money because he has a mine he has worked hard for. He owns money because people work in the mines.

And how did he get the money to buy the mine? Let me guess -- his parents gave it to him? Where did they get it? Their parents? Somewhere back in time, there was one person with a crapload of money and they left it to their children, who passed it down through generations so that it spread out to all the rich people nowadays?

Even though it's his mine; would you really say it's fair that he gets more of the money than all the miners added together just because the miners have no other choice but to work for him?

First: Yes. If he owns the mine, he controls what he pays. That's his right.

Second: Why don't the miners have any other choice? Lemme guess, the rich control everything and the poor can never do anything but work for the rich?

Third: If it's all predetermined and we don't have any real "choice" anyway, why are you complaining? It's not the owner's fault.

I could go farther into how insanely mistaken you are here ...

Because everybody who doesn't agree with you is "insanely mistaken" ... and you have hoards of people coming in here and posting their full support of everything you say? Or are we all "insanely mistaken"?

... as I guarantee you there are just as many people who work hard and aren't rich as there are hard working people who are rich ...

In which country? Are you talking about in a capitalist economy, where better work will net better pay?

Or are you talking about specific jobs? The man who digs ditches or mops floors may work his ass off every day, but won't earn as much -- and doesn't deserve as much -- as the doctor who is more specialized. Anybody can dig ditches and mop floors. There are three ways to make more money: work harder, work longer, or work smarter.

... but I believe this to be enough.

It's not. Keep trying.

That's just semantics and not an argument ...

"Animals aren't people" is as much semantics as "people are just animals", which you're trying to push.

... and please don't pull the sentimental minority card on me. I'm not comparing Jews and gypsies to animals. I'm comparing human kind in general to animals.

Jews and gypsies are humans, part of humankind. Trying to say that human life is no more valuable than animal life is ridiculously ignorant.

Since there is nothing to separate us from animals, the lack of a nerve system and consciousness separates us from plants and bacteria, there is in my opinion no difference between killing a human and killing an animal.

Humans have an extended consciousness and ability to reason. Which means we have something to separate us from animals.

And if you think that killing an animal is so bad ... you're a vegetarian at least, right? Or, further, if you believe that "mistreatment" of animals (and, thus, humans) is wrong, you're a vegan, right? No milk, no jell-o, no honey, no glue, no shampoo or makeup, no leather, etc. etc.?

Either that, or, if you believe human and animal life to be equal, how many people have you eaten? How many chunks of man-meat have been in your mouth, good buddy?

[SOLDIER #819]

So here's a question: If I go kill somebody, why punish me, if my surroundings made me do it?

I never understood this line of reasoning. People seem to feel that intent is necessary for punishment, but I think one can be "punished" regardless. Not because one has done something "wrong", but to detour further "wrongdoing". Most people, regardless of beliefs, seem to sooner or later arrive at the conclusion that a secure society is the best one. Dealing out justice (however one perceives it) is the best way to do this.

If we assume that none of us have free will and you kill someone, we'll probably lock you away so that you don't come after someone else and cause panic. Just because we don't have free will doesn't mean we also lack something like fear.

[Sinister]

From the department of questions better not asked, is free will a hoax? Most people will respond harshly to this question as it jars their sensibilities. The truth of the situation is that it really doesn't matter, particularly if it is true. It's not likely both for reasons stemming from what we know of physics(Uncertainty principle...Copenhagen interpretation) that the world is completely deterministic. So there is at least the thrill of the unknown(at least so far from our known perspective).

Better yet, this is all a very simplistic approach to a common debate topic. There is no past or future, as time is only known from the experience of the present and a 'memory' of the past(which may or may not be, and quite often isn't, accurate). No one ever lives tomorrow or yesterday. No one experiences the outcome of a choice as by the time the perceived effects from said choices arise, the actual action of choosing and the factors that may have or may not have determined it are no longer in play. I'm not denying causation by this... I'm merely not presuming it.

We say that time is linear and that it occurs in a single direction only. But we base such deductions after our own limited experience with linear time(of which is in reasonable doubt already, from what I have heard). It would be better if we did not ponder questions when we are not master of all the possible facts.

-Sin

[M16]

From the department of questions better not asked, is free will a hoax? Most people will respond harshly to this question as it jars their sensibilities. The truth of the situation is that it really doesn't matter, particularly if it is true. It's not likely both for reasons stemming from what we know of physics(Uncertainty principle...Copenhagen interpretation) that the world is completely deterministic. So there is at least the thrill of the unknown(at least so far from our known perspective).

-Sin

The Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with free will. The uncertainly principle only relates the uncertainty of momentum with the uncertainty of position. The more that is known about one, the less is known about the other. In fact, quantum mechanics itself has nothing to do with the idea of free will. Quantum mechanics, for the majority, just discusses probabilities. Mostly the probability of location. The Uncertainty Principle is basically the Copenhagen Interpretation. They're essentially the same thing.

And not that it's entirely related, but we no longer have the deduction that time is only linear. It's becoming increasingly accepted in the scientific world that time is not linear, but that it can loop around and even come to a stand-still. A more in-depth discussion of this topic in particular can be found in The Universe in a Nutshell by Steven Hawkings.

Also, in regard to the picture above of the velociraptor, although our brains are made up of particles, particles do not act the same individually as they do in groups or even in pairs. Quantum mechanics discusses particles on an individual basis, so to comment that our brains are made up of atoms (which are composed of pairs and groups of particles) shows how irrelevant quantum mechanics is when discussing the actions of the brain. That point aside, the position of the particles in our brain doesn't really affect the decisions we make, either. So basically that picture is nothing but a humorous jest. Put more concisely, although the position of particles can be calculated probabilistically (on an individual level), this is basically irrelevant when discussing decisions.

[Sinister]

I'm well aware of what the Uncertainty Principle states and it's relationship with Copenhagen interpretation. And I didn't say it had anything to do with free will or our brains. I only said it made it unlikely the universe is deterministic. You should do us the honor of proving you can read a post before you decide to counter it.

Being unable to calculate a subatomic particle's exact position in an atom has a certain symbolic link with the idea that everything isn't set in stone. The way we interact with this level of physics is contrary to the idea the universe has a predestined future. I'm not saying this is true as a fact or that we won't be able to pinpoint a subatomic particle it in the future. But at present we cannot prove, with physics, that the universe is uniformly deterministic in it's behavior. That was what was meant. This gives us luft to speak about free-will. If the universe was provably deterministic and here we are talking of free-will then this thread would be more of an ignorant farce and a joke than an intellectual debate.

-Sin

[M16]

I'm well aware of what the Uncertainty Principle states and it's relationship with Copenhagen interpretation. And I didn't say it had anything to do with free will or our brains. I only said it made it unlikely the universe is deterministic. You should do us the honor of proving you can read a post before you decide to counter it.

Also, in regard to the picture above of the velociraptor, although our brains are made up of particles, particles do not act the same individually as they do in groups or even in pairs.

You should probably do us the same honor. Other than that, I apologize for misunderstanding your post.

[Sinister]

I concede your point, certainly. To which I have no answer, other than it is unlikely the universe is deterministic. And as such, law of averages suggests that there could've been a descision made somewhere, by someone.


I also still wish to reassert for a last time that it makes no difference at all. Not the slightest. This whole debate is purely academic. Suppose there is no such thing as free-will...and? So what? Of all there revelations awaiting us, that one won't help us. If anything it might cause a panic, riots...etc... Sometimes it's best not to know and just enjoy life. If I was the sole scientist behind a discovery that would prove free-will as a hoax, I wouldn't think twice about suppressing the evidence and burying the data.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

I have a question that maybe you guys could answer. If probability does nothing to support free will directly, why does it not support determinism? That seems to be the consensus among many. Where does it fall in between? I've always considered determinism to simply mean that humans are not outside the system, but are "bound" to it. Does the introduction of probability change this?

I don't read up a lot on either philosophy or physics, so I'm at a loss.

Edit: Thinking about it, is the generic idea of determinism even applicable today given modern physics?

[M16]

I have a question that maybe you guys could answer. If probability does nothing to support free will directly, why does it not support determinism? That seems to be the consensus among many. Where does it fall in between? I've always considered determinism to simply mean that humans are not outside the system, but are "bound" to it. Does the introduction of probability change this?

I don't read up a lot on either philosophy or physics, so I'm at a loss.

Edit: Thinking about it, is the generic idea of determinism even applicable today given modern physics?

Basically, it's because probability tells us that although there is a probability that a certain particle will be at some specified location with a specified momentum, there is always an uncertainty because of an extremely low probability of it being elsewhere. I'm speaking exclusively of quantum mechanics, because that is all I know of. This says nothing of whether the particle was made to be where it is by an external force or anything else of that matter.

I personally don't believe that can be considered deterministic, because it doesn't necessarily mean something external has made the particle exist where it is or elsewhere except for the potential that it is sitting in.

[Sinister]

I have a question that maybe you guys could answer. If probability does nothing to support free will directly, why does it not support determinism? That seems to be the consensus among many. Where does it fall in between? I've always considered determinism to simply mean that humans are not outside the system, but are "bound" to it. Does the introduction of probability change this?

I don't read up a lot on either philosophy or physics, so I'm at a loss.

Edit: Thinking about it, is the generic idea of determinism even applicable today given modern physics?

Determinism is more extreme than that. It means that all events are an unalterable system put into motion at the beginning of creation/existence. That literally everything is predetermined because it exists in a cause and effect system that cannot be changed or stopped.

So Determinism rules out free-will and makes it superfluous. If Determinism is in fact, then there can be no free-will. But just because Determinism is disproved, doesn't necessarily mean free-will is true. The idea of the uncertainty principle doesn't seem to support Determinism and therefor is used quite often as ammunition against it. I simply attacked Determinism as a starting point in my argument.

We treat certain subatomic particles as though they are in every place they could possibly be in order to enact certain formulae. This system so far has worked and worked sufficiently. But it is self-contradictory, as Schrodinger could tell you. How can something be in two places at once. In effect it can't be, but we are unable to determine which position the particle is in.

As far as Determinism being applicable to Physics... So far, physics could be and often is tried to be construed in that light. But not in this case, at least. And Physics still has a few other exceptions to Determinism as well. But this was the one I chose as I know more about it.

-Sin

[Heartless Angel]

An interesting topic. My belief on the subject seems to shift almost daily. Right now I can say I willingly chose to post here. 5 Minutes from now I'll probably say I just posted here because it's in my nature to respond to things that sound interesting, and even though I had the option to NOT post here, that option had no chance of occuring, since it's not in my nature. The brain is a relatively complex structure, but its function is quite simple. It take sin information, processes it, and reacts to it. Though I can say I chose to do something, I can also say, if I took an identical brain with the same experiences in the same point of time, there is a 100% chance that it would've made the exact same choice. Not because it wanted to, but because the brain is a computer, it was programmed to. It may think it made a choice, but only because it was programmed to.

[vicks and wedge]

do we mean "free will" the song by rush!!! awsome song in fact everything rush does is awsom!!!!!

"if you choose not to decide...you still have made a choice"!!!

[Heartless Angel]

That is a ****ing amazing song I must say.

"You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."

One of the best choruses ever.

[vicks and wedge]

That is a ****ing amazing song I must say.

"You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill."

One of the best choruses ever.

if you like that and arent a huge rush fan you should be..peart writes the lyrics in about every song...every album is littered with awsome awsome lyrics!

[Heartless Angel]

I am a Rush fan, Freewill just happens to be one of my favorites. Though unfortunately, that is not the "Free Will" this thread was reffering to.