Free Will - Yes/No?

[robvalue]

There is a third option, that all actions are the net result of (quantum) randomness. So (in my opinion) it doesn't make sense to call this "free will", nor is the universe entirely deterministic, if this was the case.

However, this still results in the answer "no" to free will so I will vote that way. If I had to guess, I think it's an illusion of sorts.

But I agree with Losty. the concept of "free will" is not well defined. In fact, I consider it to be as slippery as woo words.

Well, even with quantum randomness, there's still cause and effect, right?

Presumably, yes. I don't see how that's relevant. If you're attempting to persuade someone to favour one choice over another, you are assuming they have the ability to consciously make such a choice.

"Should" as used in a predictive, scientific setting, is not like a moral imperative at all.

[Excited Penguin]

If you're attempting to persuade someone to favour one choice over another, you are assuming they have the ability to consciously make such a choice.

Well, let's not go down that rabbit hole.

Presumably, yes. I don't see how that's relevant.

It is relevant because we can never escape causality and that means we do live in a deterministic universe. Do you see anything wrong with that line of thought?

"Should" as used in a predictive, scientific setting, is not like a moral imperative at all.

I didn't understand this, what are you talking about here?

[paulpablo]

I don't know either way.  I go about my days believing that free will is definitely real because the idea of determinism makes me feel unmotivated.

[robvalue]

"If we have no genuine choices to make, then we shouldn't put people in prison."

That's an example of the free will fallacy. It's trying to make a persuasive argument for a choice of action, while presuming there is no such choice to be made.

[Excited Penguin]

"If we have no genuine choices to make, then we shouldn't put people in prison."

That's an example of the free will fallacy. It's trying to make a persuasive argument for a choice of action, while presuming there is no such choice to be made.

I still can't make what you're arguing here, or why.

[robvalue]

OK. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. I will think on it.

I'm saying it's a flawed argument to use the lack of free will to try and persuade someone to act in a way that requires free will to make sense. It would be like saying how we should spend our money, assuming we have no money.

Why? Because I've seen this mistake many times. It's just an aside.

[Excited Penguin]

OK. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. I will think on it.

I'm saying it's a flawed argument to use the lack of free will to try and persuade someone to act in a way that requires free will to make sense. It would be like saying how we should spend our money, assuming we have no money.

Why? Because I've seen this mistake many times. It's just an aside.

It's not really flawed, you're just confused about it. You don't believe in free will, yet I assume you do think people should act in a certain way, so whether you like it or not, you make that same argument again and again. The apparent contradiction dispels when you consider the fact that one is an observation( there is no free will) and the other is a suggestion(we should do X). The two can and do coexist, that much is clearly the case, and I don't see why they shouldn't, though arguing in that direction seems utterly illogical to begin with.

[robvalue]

I can't make any sense of that, sorry. I shall have to abandon the discussion. What I believe is irrelevant, I'm examining just the argument itself.

If I ever make an argument phrased this way, then I am being fallacious. I don't believe I ever have, though. What I believe is likely to be true is not the same as stating what is true for the sake of argument.

[GrandizerII]

A couple days ago, this came out:
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/free-wil...aims-study

"
Our minds may be rewriting history,” Adam Bear, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology at Yale University and lead author of the study, said in a statement. The implication here is that when it comes to very short time scales, even before we think we’ve made a conscious choice, our mind has already subconsciously decided for us, and free will is more of an illusion than we think.
"

Well, as long as we end up making the choice that we find desirable, then that could still be considered free will. Depending on how you look at it.

[GrandizerII]

I don't know either way.  I go about my days believing that free will is definitely real because the idea of determinism makes me feel unmotivated.

Why? Even given determinism, you still can do what you want to do.