Yeah, I totally agree. Evolution and the meaning of life aside, I don't think age is a relevant factor when it comes to free will. I mean, it's the inevitable boundary we will run into.



Yes and although it might be stretch, one could even argue aging faster is actually quite beneficial for evolution itself in most cases, as it will mean a more rapid succession of different evolutionary forms of species in a shorter time span. Of course, for most species living shorter isn't necessarily a relevant or vital factor for survival, which would explain how some species can still get quite old (sea-turtles, whales and even humans).

Very interesting stuff.

Yes, that lifespan should be a nice field of study:

Whales: Big Animals, that take a very long time to
grow and raise their offsprings. Females can maybe reproduce every thrid year (or more?)
So a long lifespan is nessesary to survive.

Fruitflies: Quick to grow to adults, little energy required. can spawn hundrets of eggs.
Longer Lifespan is of no benifit.

tall redwood trees require a long time to grow.
(the hight is actually a competition for hight -> to get light)
Living long at the earned place and spwaning lots of offspring
that might get the chance to fill / grow in a recent "clear space" in the thick
forest is vital.

Evolution has simple mechanics, (competition of the fittest, long term adaption to that)
but can explain all these issues so beautifully.

Yeah, I do hope we figure out which genes influence aging directly. It would be kinda neat to be around for a lot longer than say 80 years.

Too bad that in case of whales they're a very vulnerable species because of that. Chances are actually pretty high that they will go extinct (sooner) because their lifespan deviates this much. Even without the whale hunting.

Free will is just an too open field to agree here completely. I would say it is limited. There are some degrees of freedom but we overestimate it.

Phemox dont want to become a Cowabanga and Cowabanga will tell that it is his free will not to become a Phemox. Is it good or bad? Now it is just because both got other influences, had other parents, different friends, different education, different culture.
There was not much free will involved.

Another simple example is: names of kids. There is a statistic in Germany. They found in all the big cities of Germany that parents gave their babies the same names. The most frequent 5 names were exactly the same in the same order for all these cities.
Every single person will tell you they decided it with their "free will"

Or you rather underestimate it.



Here comes the fun part. Explain or rather prove to me why there isn't actual free will involved? It's exactly what philosophers have talked and thought about for centuries.

But in my opinion.. We're making choices. We're aware of the choices we make, even if in a biological way a bit 'late' (those tests might be flawed as a result of our lack of understanding of our brains though).

We might not notice that we often make the same choices, but the odds at making the same exact decision in our world full of limits is rather big.

That doesn't prove free will is none-existing. It doesn't even mean our free will is limited. It only means our actions are limited by physical and social rules.



Statistics tend to lie a lot though and aren't relevant when you've only got a few choices. Because who would call their German son 'Trdsfd o' Deie' ? People could... and some even give their son a weird name, but they usually have a second name too to make sure the boy won't be bullied his entire life. There's consequences to many of our actions. Naming your kid 'Sissy' even if it's an American girl simply isn't smart to do. This doesn't mean it's not a viable choice when it comes to free will, but many people wouldn't decide for that, but differently.

It's sort of like saying if everyone would really have a free will, why don't they just get along nicely without starting wars and all that... but you could also argue that the very contrary is a result of free will, not chains of inevitability.

Still, most people around me tend to do the same, to make similar decision (like naming their kids the same), to watch the same tv show, to listen to the same movie. Teenagers world-wide tend to dress like the MTV stars. Is this free will? Maybe free will is involved but it is very much predeterminated by their surroundings.

So I still tend to say free will is overestimated

Actually giving such a name is not allowed in Germany.
There is a control procedure,
when giving an unusual name. Normally
made up fantasy names are not allowed. They need to
have some valid appearance as used names before.

I also think that parent should not have complete free will over
the names of their children.
As the children have to live with the name later. They are not
sopposed to be decorations for the pleasure of the parents.
I hate when these exentric "Movie / Music Stars" give their children stupid fantasy names.

Yes, you are right Damocles. I had to pay a name researcher to prove that the name of my daughter exists. Otherwise it would not be allowed to call her that way.
But at least my daughter is not called like all the other kids in the Kindergarten. Really, most of them share the same names.

Okey, but that's a. a social limitation and b. not true for each and every human on this planet at all. The boundaries may be culturally defined, sure, but there are nevertheless people calling their children Michael ( as in Michael Jackson) and some even Adolf, despite social conflict in doing so.

People can pay money for name changes, even in Germany. More uncommon names are definitely a possibility in most if not all countries. Giving a true fantasy name that has the characteristics of an actual name certainly is allowed! My example doesn't really have the characteristics of a true name, but it could very well be interpreted as such looking at names in sci-fi movies or books to justify it.

Think of Kal-El, Superman's name. Regardless of German law and rules for choosing names which could prevent people from calling their children Kal-El, from a linguistic point of view it's merely a extremely uncommon name.

Sort of despite the law, people still are very very much free in trying to call their children Kal-El or any other fantasy name. Social laws like the one for names have their purpose in society though (like preventing people from naming their child 'beautiful poo' ) and it's why there's some form of limitation on that.



Maybe it's just jealousy because they are being different? I'm pretty sure by the way that with enough money, people could also name their children really weird names in Germany if they'd want to. I'm not saying it would be easy, and no guarantees, but within realistic limits it's certainly possible.

Apart from the fact that calling your children in every day situations itself still isn't limited by a law which demands children to have 'known' names. I know people that call their daughter Mary, even though her actual official name is Anemary-antionette or some other kind of contraption of multiple or more uncommon names.

Also, I think that giving names and being limited in your choice because of social-cultural defined limits isn't exactly a perfect example of how free will is limited.

For example, one could decide not to give a child a name at all as an act of free will, but as many will realize having a name evidently has it's purpose, so again very much like killing yourself 'just because you could do so with a free will', might simply be an irrelevant kind of action to the whole subject as it's subordinate to social rules that if broken will cause conflict.

It still doesn't mean we couldn't do it anyway despite social control though, as many criminals convicted of crimes show.

Free will should not mean that you should have full will
over your children.
Thats where the social limits must step in.
And choosing an inappropriate name is such a limit.
Children are not some kind of furniture or designer-dress.

Michael Jackson was a terrible "father".
He was hiding his children from the outside world,
they where not allowed to meet other children or go to
public schools. They had to go to shops after they closed
to buy toys and stuff like that. They basically never had
a real social life.

This guy was an exentric bastard to his children, more
than his father to him. Its probably not even his biological children.

Free will is - when affecting others - often the limit
to others free will.