Citing Quantum theory for determinism just shows you don't know fuck about Quantum theory.

Amphora, if our wills aren't free, then we, by definition... don't have free will. Free will is about our wills being free.

I don't believe our wills are free, nor do I believe our choices are: Which is why I don't believe in 'Free will'.

EvF

(October 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Amphora, if our wills aren't free, then we, by definition... don't have free will. Free will is about our wills being free.

I also don't believe our wills are free, not do I believe our choices are: Which is why I don't believe in 'Free will'.

EvF

Ok. I agree with you EvF

(October 17, 2009 at 10:28 am)solarwave Wrote: I think I understand what you mean now, but I don't see how there is any moral responsibility in it.

Describe to me where you see an absence of moral responsibility; i.e., what you understand moral responsibility to be and how what I said fails to square with it.

(October 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Amphora, if our wills aren't free, then we, by definition... don't have free will. Free will is about our wills being free.

I don't believe our wills are free, nor do I believe our choices are: Which is why I don't believe in 'Free will'.

EvF

When you have to butcher the meaning of a concept through semantics to make your point you have completely failed.

Free will is the concept that we have freedom over out actions and decisions, my decision to write a response to you was a decision between two variables that arose from your message, i had the choice to reply, or to not reply and while the two variables arose through causation (your writing your post provided the context) my response was not cause and effect, it was cause and decision, leading to effect.

Were we to talk about an unintelligent universe then everything would be deterministic - if you had a complete understanding of the physical laws of the universe you could calculate the position of every single particle in space throughout time, but that would only be the case in a universe without awareness. When you have awareness you have values, irrationality, decision, preference, goals, ideals, subjectivity... These things make Determinism impossible.

I thought what made determinism impossible was the randomness of quantum level events? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc?

Awareness has very little to do with it, as it could easily be argued that awareness is an illusion of our minds. You are assuming free will exists in the first place to disprove determinism, to then support free will. It's a circular argument.

(October 19, 2009 at 4:34 am)Tiberius Wrote: I thought what made determinism impossible was the randomness of quantum level events? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc?

Awareness has very little to do with it, as it could easily be argued that awareness is an illusion of our minds. You are assuming free will exists in the first place to disprove determinism, to then support free will. It's a circular argument.

Yes, Quantum theory does, but so does the mere fact that it (free will) exists. There is absolutely no evidence of a predetermined path or an idea for a grand purpose, and to assume so without any evidence is as stupid as it is assuming anything else significant without evidence.

There's no evidence that our choices are free whether determinism or indeterminism is true. If everything is determined then our choices aren't truly "free", they're free in the compatibilist sense but that's another matter of what you consider "free" or not. And in indeterminism, the fact that choices are not determined does not give you control. Your will itself is not "free", if it has more randomness. A lottery doesn't have free choice, and how exactly does awareness give it (like Adrian said). Being conscious of our choices is not the same of having free control over them.

Yes you make choices and decisions Void, we all do, but how are they free?

As I have said many a time on this thread now, I'm not questioning whether we have choices or decisions - I'm questioning whether they're "free" or not . I see no reason to believe that they are and have no evidence that they are, how are they "free", and how can they be? What makes them exempt from the natural process? How does consciousness of our choices make any difference to them being "free" or not?

And no Void, however semantic my argument is, that does not automatically imply that my argument is flawed. And I can always have a go at expressing it again, it I fail to get my position expressed well that doesn't mean my conclusion is false, and I can always try again to clarify it.

And, for the record, I did not buncher a concept at all. Free will is indeed about whether our wills are free or not. You speak of whether we have freedom, over out own choices and decisions. But that's the same thing, whether we have freedom over our will or not, whether our "Will" is "Free" or not.

EvF

(October 18, 2009 at 11:11 pm)Arcanus Wrote:

(October 17, 2009 at 10:28 am)solarwave Wrote: I think I understand what you mean now, but I don't see how there is any moral responsibility in it.

Describe to me where you see an absence of moral responsibility; i.e., what you understand moral responsibility to be and how what I said fails to square with it.

I havn't read what you wrote in a while now, but am I right in thinking you think the will is determined (maybe from the beginning of time) but the individual is free because he is acting on his will. Well if the will is determined then how can you blame someone for doing what they do when they couldn't have done any differently. Wouldn't that mean a muderer murders because of factors he cannot control which seems little different from punishing a robot. It acts according to hardware and software, but is still not responsible for its actions. Are not the 'agent's conative faculties' through which the 'causal chain runs' also a product of what has come before and so the way we think determined.

I dunno, I seem to have come to the conclusion that we are determined (not that I like it) and I am trying to see what I have missed out.

Just to give you my view:

There are different degrees of external freedom...some people are imprisoned, some people or not,for example. Etc.

However, I know of no evidence whatsoever that our Wills are free. We are just doing what we are doing like the rest of the universe does, whether conscious or unconscious, living or non-living, etc. I do not believe in Free Will - although this doesn't mean I am a determinist. I consider the poll a false dichotomy. You can disbelieve free will whether you're a determinist or indeterminist. If our wills are more random that doesn't make them "Free". The lottery is random and that isn't exactly freedom of control. So if we are more indetermined, as the universe is, that doesn't give us any more free will (Which is what drives us, what controls us, etc.).

So no, in my eyes it does not make sense to blame someone for their actions. That won't stop people from doing it however, it's natural to. I try to catch myself if I ever end up doing it.

However, there could be an exception: What if, in a certain situation(s), it were good for the future if you blamed someone? If blaming someone could ever change the future for the better on the whole, then it can be worth it.

But as a general rule it makes no sense so isn't worth it and is unethical I say. It makes no sense to blame people simply to punish them for the sake of punishing because they are "evil", it only makes sense if it effects the future properly.

A very simple example: Whether Hitler 'could have done otherwise' or not, it's still a good thing for humanity that he was fought against and defeated I say!!

Likewise, when criminals do something horrific, it's almost certainly better for them to be kept away from the public, to be put in prison - than for them to be just "let off", whether they can 'do otherwise'...or not.

EvF