Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:47 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
#11
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
Free will is a case in which something like Pascal's Wager makes sense. I behave as if I have a free will, because if there is there are consequences depending upon how I behave. If I don't have a free will, then this is how I would have behaved anyway. There's really no downside.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#12
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
How about we leave unsettled?
That way works better for the majority of people.

While we don't know, we can speculate... I'd wager our brains are deterministic, but very very complex. So much so that our own sense of responsibility must be a part of that complex system and must be accounted for when making a decision.
We need to have boundaries imposed so that our brains can work under them. These boundaries are commonly called rules or laws.
These rules and laws usually come from society, first from parents, then teachers... some of us even go to law school!

Of course, in the absence of a society, our brains tend to manufacture one that suits them... sadly there are few studies done on isolated human individuals... but one can perform thought experiments... something of the sort has been explored as a novel with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred...f_Solitude... although it was not intended as a psychological study, but more of a societal description. Then you have Tarzan, Nell (maybe she doesn't belong here), Mogli, The Outcast, Robinson Crusoe...
But I'm getting sidetracked...

The point is, this should be a deterministic system, of such a complexity that many possibilities arise and the means of arriving at any particular decision is highly non-linear, hinging on a multitude of little details.
The words I choose to interact with you, here, have been imparted on me in some fashion and I am now recalling them... some fancier, some cruder... even the act of answering on this thread and not another is a decision.
Most decisions we make throughout the day, we don't notice them....
We blink, because our eye is dry or some dirt entered it... is the blinking process conscious or unconscious? Is it deterministic?
Who says blinking, says any reflex action that isn't really unconscious... like a martial arts master that blocks a blow almost without looking... all his senses acquire information which tells him that he must block that blow... or else, he knows it will hurt... and he doesn't want that pain...
I'm rambling, now.... sorry... my brain does that, sometimes!Tongue
Reply
#13
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
I'm very surprised people act like this isn't a practical issue, when we've already seen it applied repeatedly in society.  I've always felt the idea that being gay was genetic rather than a choice was what put them over the top in terms of gaining a consensus of support.  Another easy example is Alcholism being classified as a disease rather than just a terrible series of choices.

With mood disorders, we see a lot of skipping right over 'conciousness' and going straight to trying to alter how the brain works through medications.

In terms of momentum, it appears that 'free will' practically speaking is ahead of 'free will' philosophically.
Reply
#14
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
(April 14, 2015 at 5:32 pm)wallym Wrote: I'm very surprised people act like this isn't a practical issue, when we've already seen it applied repeatedly in society.  I've always felt the idea that being gay was genetic rather than a choice was what put them over the top in terms of gaining a consensus of support.  Another easy example is Alcholism being classified as a disease rather than just a terrible series of choices.

With mood disorders, we see a lot of skipping right over 'conciousness' and going straight to trying to alter how the brain works through medications.

In terms of momentum, it appears that 'free will' practically speaking is ahead of 'free will' philosophically.

Thank you, these are very good examples of how applying determinism in a practical way led (or is leading) to a better society.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?” 
― Tom StoppardRosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
Reply
#15
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
I masturbate a lot. But don't blame me. . . I can't help it. Tongue

(April 14, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Act as if free will does exist.

There is also "compatibilism"

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.[1] Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

Yes, but it's under a definition of "free" that is not normally applied to the term "free will."
Reply
#16
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: I've been putting some thought, and actually doing some reading on the idea of free will.  It's existence is one thing.  I'm leaning towards it not being a thing, and probably consciousness being an illusion as well.  But it's mostly guesswork for now, which is all that's relevant.

The problem is the implications of that uncertainty. 


I think the first thing you need to do is precisely define "free will."  Before you attempt that, I recommend, at a minimum, reading the following encyclopedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

These discussions typically begin with someone assuming that the meaning is clear and that everyone agrees on it.  That is wrong, and it leads to much wasted time and verbiage.


(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: How one would behave in a world where people are responsible for their actions, and one where they aren't are totally different.


There is no necessary difference between how one would act in a world where people are responsible for their actions and one in which they are not.  And you should explain, very clearly, how this relates to the question of whether people have "free will" or not, whatever that phrase means, which needs to be clearly defined for us to have a productive discussion.


(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: In a world where they are, we're free to judge and despise them.  Feel superiority, etc.. And it's all fine, because we chose to be who we are, and they chose to be who they are.  

In it's absence, however, that's the equivalent of yelling at the weather.  We don't believe a tornado is a jerk.  Instead we'd focus on getting a desirable outcome.  Things would be dealt with in a very logical way, as we attempted to dissuade/modify behaviors to get them to fall in line with whatever it is we want.


You seem to be presuming two separate things with that.  First, that we know the truth, whatever it might be.  There is no reason to presume that.  If we have "free will," we may or may not know it, and if we don't have "free will," we may or may not know it.  Second, you are presuming that we would either freely choose to behave differently, or, perhaps,  that we would be "caused" to behave differently (if you suppose this second thing, you will want to explain "cause" to us).  You have not given us any reason to suppose that that would be the case.  If we have no responsibility for our actions, that does not necessitate us not judging or despising others or feeling superior to others.


(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: Or perhaps judging/despising/feeling superiority is the answer that evolution came up with that is more effective at getting the desired results than becoming aware of free will being an illusion, and acting accordingly based on that understanding?

Key point:  
When you have a concept that defines how you should live, and you don't know the true nature of that concept, how do you go forward?  Does it matter to people that their belief/non-belief in free will has a decent chance of being a fallacy upon which so much of their live's decisions are built? 


I have never known anyone to behave substantially differently, based on whether the person claims to believe in "free will" or not.  The wise ones look both ways before crossing a street, and the fools do not.  Claiming a belief in "free will" or not is irrelevant.

As for how to treat criminals, the practically-minded people focus on rehabilitation for those who will eventually be released from prison, regardless of whether they believe in "free will" or not.  But those who are angry and want vengeance often do not consider the practical import of how criminals are treated.

(April 14, 2015 at 5:32 pm)wallym Wrote: I'm very surprised people act like this isn't a practical issue, when we've already seen it applied repeatedly in society.  I've always felt the idea that being gay was genetic rather than a choice was what put them over the top in terms of gaining a consensus of support. ...


I disagree.  If it is genetic, then one might want to use medication to cure the genetic disorder (if, that is, one views homosexuality as a disorder).

In my case, whether my neighbor is gay or not has no significance to my life, so I do not concern myself with the question.  It seems to me that the issue is a question of whether one wants to control other people's behavior or not, in cases where their behavior is irrelevant to one's life.  Whether other people are caused to be gay, or choose to be gay, seems to me to be quite irrelevant to the matter.

In the same way, I do not care if my immediate neighbor is black or white (or something else), though I am pretty sure that that is not merely a matter of the individual choosing.  And in the same way, I do not care if my immediate neighbor is a stamp collector or not, though I am pretty sure that that is a matter of the individual choosing (in the ordinary dictionary sense of the word "choosing," not necessarily in the sense in which you are likely to use it in this thread).  Neither the color of my neighbor's skin, nor whether he or she is a stamp collector, is of any importance to me, and so I take no action regarding these matters.

I'll add one more thing.  This is from the Wikipedia article about David Hume:

Free will, determinism, and responsibility[edit]

Hume, along with Thomas Hobbes, is cited as a classical compatibilist about the notions of freedom and determinism.[87] The thesis of compatibilism seeks to reconcile human freedom with the mechanist belief that human beings are part of a deterministic universe, whose happenings are governed by physical laws. Hume, to this end, was influenced greatly by the scientific revolution and by in particular Sir Isaac Newton.[88] Hume argued that the dispute about the compatibility of freedom and determinism has been continued over two thousand years by ambiguous terminology. He wrote: "From this circumstance alone, that a controversy has been long kept on foot ... we may presume that there is some ambiguity in the expression", and that different disputants use different meanings for the same terms.[89][90]


Hume defines the concept of necessity as "the uniformity, observable in the operations of nature; where similar objects are constantly conjoined together",[91] and liberty as "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will".[92] He then argues that, according to these definitions, not only are the two compatible, but liberty requires necessity. For if our actions were not necessitated in the above sense, they would "have so little in connexion with motives, inclinations and circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other". But if our actions are not thus connected to the will, then our actions can never be free: they would be matters of "chance; which is universally allowed to have no existence".[93] Australian philosopher John Passmore writes that confusion has arisen because "necessity" has been taken to mean "necessary connexion". Once this has been abandoned, Hume argues that "liberty and necessity will be found not to be in conflict one with another".[90]


Moreover, Hume goes on to argue that in order to be held morally responsible, it is required that our behaviour be caused or necessitated, for, as he wrote:
Quote:Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil.[94]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume...onsibility

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#17
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
I don't know how to do your fancy quoting stuff, so I just replied in bold.

(April 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:
(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: I've been putting some thought, and actually doing some reading on the idea of free will.  It's existence is one thing.  I'm leaning towards it not being a thing, and probably consciousness being an illusion as well.  But it's mostly guesswork for now, which is all that's relevant.

The problem is the implications of that uncertainty. 


I think the first thing you need to do is precisely define "free will."  Before you attempt that, I recommend, at a minimum, reading the following encyclopedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

These discussions typically begin with someone assuming that the meaning is clear and that everyone agrees on it.  That is wrong, and it leads to much wasted time and verbiage.


Quote:Okey dokie.  Everything we are is a product of our genetics and the product of those genetics reaction to environment.  In the same way a computer program is just code and input.  

That's what I'd view an absence of free will as.  I don't know exactly what to define free will would be based on what I just said.  And from what I've read, nobody does, because it sounds like the laws of physics as we know them don't allow for anything else yet.

This is the context of free will, or maybe better an absence of free will that I'm discussing.  Although, that was probably gleanable in the context of the post.



(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: How one would behave in a world where people are responsible for their actions, and one where they aren't are totally different.

There is no necessary difference between how one would act in a world where people are responsible for their actions and one in which they are not.  And you should explain, very clearly, how this relates to the question of whether people have "free will" or not, whatever that phrase means, which needs to be clearly defined for us to have a productive discussion.


Quote:Bob the Viking mistakenly believes the sea has some say in what it does, and that he can curry favor with it by sacrificing his finest goat.  Jim the Accountant knows the sea is just the sea, and so keeps his finest goat and makes lovely cheese.  There's nothing saying Jim couldn't sacrifice his goat anyways, but it'd be illogical.  The general idea of doing what is logical is what I'm curious about. 


(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: In a world where they are, we're free to judge and despise them.  Feel superiority, etc.. And it's all fine, because we chose to be who we are, and they chose to be who they are.  

In it's absence, however, that's the equivalent of yelling at the weather.  We don't believe a tornado is a jerk.  Instead we'd focus on getting a desirable outcome.  Things would be dealt with in a very logical way, as we attempted to dissuade/modify behaviors to get them to fall in line with whatever it is we want.


You seem to be presuming two separate things with that.  First, that we know the truth, whatever it might be.  There is no reason to presume that.  If we have "free will," we may or may not know it, and if we don't have "free will," we may or may not know it.  Second, you are presuming that we would either freely choose to behave differently, or, perhaps,  that we would be "caused" to behave differently (if you suppose this second thing, you will want to explain "cause" to us).  You have not given us any reason to suppose that that would be the case.  If we have no responsibility for our actions, that does not necessitate us not judging or despising others or feeling superior to others.


Quote:I'm not presuming that we know the truth.  I'm identifying the two possible states of reality.   There's free will or there's not.  And then I attempted to logically follow what the implications would be if we knew which state.  The point of all this is that we are in the 3rd state of not knowing, and faced with the decision of how to proceed.  While my brain is comfortable with a course of action for the first two states, it doesn't know how it should logically proceed in the 3rd state.

As for part II, I think fully knowing free will was a thing, one would choose to behave one way, and knowing there was no free will, we'd behave however it is we behave. 

Another Analogy:  
We have an equation 1 + X = Y.
With free will, X = 3.  'Logically" we should conclude Y = 4.  But humans can still choose any number for Y they want, because free to do whatever.
Without Free Will, X = 4.  'Logically' the brain should output Y=5.  But the brain might have terrible logic, and spit out 7.  Always 7.

I'm interested in the 'logical' answer.  Which I understand involves plenty of unknowns and suppositions and whatnot.  But again, that's why I made the thread, to get others input on what would be logical, and what they even view 'logical' to mean.

You seem to want a very confined set of parameters for the discussion, but I'm happy to intake anything anyone has to offer with any parameters they like, because the parameters are almost all guesswork anyways.


(April 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm)wallym Wrote: Or perhaps judging/despising/feeling superiority is the answer that evolution came up with that is more effective at getting the desired results than becoming aware of free will being an illusion, and acting accordingly based on that understanding?

Key point:  
When you have a concept that defines how you should live, and you don't know the true nature of that concept, how do you go forward?  Does it matter to people that their belief/non-belief in free will has a decent chance of being a fallacy upon which so much of their live's decisions are built? 


I have never known anyone to behave substantially differently, based on whether the person claims to believe in "free will" or not.  The wise ones look both ways before crossing a street, and the fools do not.  Claiming a belief in "free will" or not is irrelevant.


Quote:Neither have I.  The thought never really crossed my mind in a serious way until a few weeks ago.  That being said, we definitely treat things we view as having free will different than things we do not view as having free will.  I've never seen a toaster in County Jail for burning someone's hand.  And Bob the Viking and Jim the Accountant both deal very differently with the sea based on their thoughts on it having free will.  

But humans seem to be pretty slow in getting around to these kinds of things.  Look how long it took for Atheism to start catching on.  I think the idea that free will might not be a thing isn't on 99.99% of people's radar, and many who's radar it's on are likely still tangling with the implications.  On top of which, the pro-free will idea might be getting some support from an evolutionary disposition to believe we have free will.  Again, this is all just rambling stuff, and I made the thread to hear others ramble as well.  In fact, that's why I'm on these boards altogether.  To hear other people's ramblings, 'cause this stuff be complicated!


As for how to treat criminals, the practically-minded people focus on rehabilitation for those who will eventually be released from prison, regardless of whether they believe in "free will" or not.  But those who are angry and want vengeance often do not consider the practical import of how criminals are treated.



Quote:There is a sense of justice in punishment that I think you ignore there.   The idea that choosing to do wrong warrants punishment.  Not only as dissuasion, but as whatever type of Karma like system they've got going on.  

I'm not sure what my conclusion would be in the non-free will state.  It'd certainly involve rehabilitation.  Punishment as dissuasion would probably be necessary as well.  But the Karma idea would probably go by the wayside.  Or maybe we keep it, because that's the best route.  Hell, maybe the best way to go all around, is to just act like there is free will even if there isn't.



(April 14, 2015 at 5:32 pm)wallym Wrote: I'm very surprised people act like this isn't a practical issue, when we've already seen it applied repeatedly in society.  I've always felt the idea that being gay was genetic rather than a choice was what put them over the top in terms of gaining a consensus of support. ...


I disagree.  If it is genetic, then one might want to use medication to cure the genetic disorder (if, that is, one views homosexuality as a disorder).

In my case, whether my neighbor is gay or not has no significance to my life, so I do not concern myself with the question.  It seems to me that the issue is a question of whether one wants to control other people's behavior or not, in cases where their behavior is irrelevant to one's life.  Whether other people are caused to be gay, or choose to be gay, seems to me to be quite irrelevant to the matter.


Quote:Irrelevant to you.  I was talking about the societal response to the movement.  I thought the 'push' over the hump was 'being born gay' because a large part of the opposition was framing it as choosing to do something wrong.  When the 'choice' was removed from the equation, people didn't view it as negatively.  This of course is my anecdotal interpretation of the nation's discourse on the subject.
In the same way, I do not care if my immediate neighbor is black or white (or something else), though I am pretty sure that that is not merely a matter of the individual choosing.  And in the same way, I do not care if my immediate neighbor is a stamp collector or not, though I am pretty sure that that is a matter of the individual choosing (in the ordinary dictionary sense of the word "choosing," not necessarily in the sense in which you are likely to use it in this thread).  Neither the color of my neighbor's skin, nor whether he or she is a stamp collector, is of any importance to me, and so I take no action regarding these matters.


Quote:We have the luxury of being enlightened 21st century folk!  Lucky us.
Reply
#18
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
Just live. 
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.
Reply
#19
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
An absence of libertarian free will is only controversial because people don't understand what it is they mean by the term. It possesses an element of mystery and this, to them, is sufficient to somehow embolden life with a concept of freedom that they find necessary for something like ultimate moral responsibility. Without "choice" unrestricted by natural coercive influences they see no room for attributing behaviors to the individual as a "self in absolute control" of their actions. This is superfluous. "Will" means nothing more than "character." Your character is developed over time, and it includes your ideas (which is why many of us anti-religionists find the battle for ideas, and absolute freedom to question them, so important), which are usually instilled by authorities when you are young and later on by reason when you have learned how to properly follow it on your own. Your ideas are restricted to your experiences. Your passions and your thoughts often conflict, as do your desires with those around you. When your character is "free," as in free from the restrictions of others' desires imposed upon yours, you are acting according to your "free will." This action is never spontaneous even if seems to be in the moment. Reflection always reveals causes, either physical or psychological or rational. When it results from your character (as it has developed, beyond your complete or "ultimate" control), we punish you as the chiefly responsible party, in hopes that one of us will conform your thoughts or impulses. When you misbehave "out of character," as in the case of a mental breakdown, we show more sympathy. I don't see how losing "free will" in the libertarian sense effects life at all as we already naturally think and act with the sense in which free will actually exists.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#20
RE: What do we do while deciding if free will exists?
I see the argument over free will as very similar to the one over absolute morality being law from a metaphysical lawgiver.

I doubt I would act differently if there
  1. was a God who gave moral law and would someday punish infringement but had no sensible, current manifestations or
  2. was no such God but, in exactly identical fashion to the above, I mistakenly thought there was.
Similarly I would not be able to discern between the following

  1. I had a free choice to select between various, potential world paths and
  2. I had no such free choice but thought that I did with no evidence to prove I was in error.
If there is no way to currently tell a difference between 2 states, then there is no current difference.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? Huh
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  God exists subjectively? henryp 90 12181 November 21, 2016 at 9:04 am
Last Post: Tonus
  God exists because we can imagine it Heat 46 7714 December 6, 2015 at 11:05 am
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  If God exists but doesn't do anything, how would we know? And would it matter? TaraJo 7 3986 January 26, 2013 at 11:14 am
Last Post: DeistPaladin
  Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists? CliveStaples 124 46961 August 29, 2012 at 5:22 am
Last Post: Categories+Sheaves
  If you were certain a designer exists... Mystic 10 4228 July 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  A One In An infinity Chance That God Exists. What Do You Guys Think? amateurlyinsightful 82 29545 July 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Last Post: amateurlyinsightful
  I believe everything exists. Edwardo Piet 23 5302 November 2, 2010 at 4:46 am
Last Post: Ervin
  Everything exists TruthWorthy 33 16538 March 10, 2010 at 5:40 am
Last Post: Violet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)