Free Will - Yes/No?

[Excited Penguin]

You don't think you're forced to either participate or not at any given moment by processes in your brain that you couldn't possibly control? Not to mention, if your internet connection was suddenly lost, or something similar happened, that too would be outside of your control and you'd be forced to stop participating in the thread, whether you wanted to or not.

Yeah, but he said that free will is on a spectrum. You may not have complete control over anything due to external factors, but putting those factors aside, continuing to post here becomes a matter of you desiring to do so. No one else is forcing you to post or not post here in such a scenario.

In that case, he's defining free will as something it's not. Maybe a dictionary would help.

But other people are part of your environment as well. No matter how you look at it, you don't have any more power over your brain function than over your environment. The idea that you do is a complete illusion and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[vorlon13]

Free will ?


Igneous ointment spread round the enraged stairwell.

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, but he said that free will is on a spectrum. You may not have complete control over anything due to external factors, but putting those factors aside, continuing to post here becomes a matter of you desiring to do so. No one else is forcing you to post or not post here in such a scenario.

How is someone else forcing you instead of your genes/environment forcing you any more depriving of free will?

Well, it all comes down to how one defines free will obviously, but there is a difference between doing something that you at least feel like you did by choice and doing something because you were forced to.

It's all relative, of course. If by free will, you're like many others referring to that weird something that isn't even definable, that should be of no relevance. It doesn't concern us.

[Excited Penguin]

How is someone else forcing you instead of your genes/environment forcing you any more depriving of free will?

Well, it all comes down to how one defines free will obviously, but there is a difference between doing something that you at least feel like you did by choice and doing something because you were forced to.

It's all relative, of course. If by free will, you're like many others referring to that weird something that isn't even definable, that should be of no relevance. It doesn't concern us.

Yes, the difference being in one case you're deluded and in another you're more cognizant of what's actually going on.



Free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

There's no such thing, and there's no other meaning these two words take that I know of.

[pocaracas]

Poc: I think I get what you're generally trying to say.

But the argument "don't send people to prison" is clearly assuming that we "should" do it for reasons other than it's an inevitable conclusion. If that was the case, the whole argument would be redundant anyway.

The argument is clearly aimed at a group of people with free will, holding judgement over those without. But it forgets that the first group are no exception to the premise.

I must have missed the "don't send people to prison" argument...
People are put in prisons because their biology leads them to act in harmful ways.
For some, that time-out, or punishment, is deterrent from repeating the behavior.... it's an extra piece of info that goes into the decision making process.
For most, sadly, it is not... but we do not know how to change someone's biology, do we?... so we go for that very indirect way.

[GrandizerII]

Well, it all comes down to how one defines free will obviously, but there is a difference between doing something that you at least feel like you did by choice and doing something because you were forced to.

It's all relative, of course. If by free will, you're like many others referring to that weird something that isn't even definable, that should be of no relevance. It doesn't concern us.

Yes, the difference being in one case you're deluded and in another you're more cognizant of what's actually going on.



Free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

There's no such thing, and there's no other meaning these two words take that I know of.

One's own discretion. The first portion of that definition seems to treat necessity or fate as something opposed to one's discretion.

Here's another definition:

1. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
   

I disagree this is delusion, though, because when you make a choice by your own will, one can reasonably consider this free will. It's only a delusion if you don't accept that who you are is not independent of your genes/environment. But no one here is saying that.

[robvalue]

Poc: I think we're talking at cross purposes

I'm talking about someone suggesting that a potential scientific discovery that we have "no genuine choices" should morally persuade us to change our protocol about who we put in prison; ie. we put no one in prison.

But the premise of the argument removes any meaningfulness from making a change of protocol, because such a change would be beyond our control anyway, should it happen, due to the correctness of the discovery which is hypothetically assumed. We wouldn't do it because this is an accurate and persuasive argument.

I don't know how else to explain it Like I said, it would be like saying "if we have no money, we should spend it on wine."

It's a problem with the logic, not with the science behind free will and such.

[Excited Penguin]

Yes, the difference being in one case you're deluded and in another you're more cognizant of what's actually going on.



Free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

There's no such thing, and there's no other meaning these two words take that I know of.

One's own discretion. The first portion of that definition seems to treat necessity or fate as something opposed to one's discretion.

Here's another definition:

1. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
   

I disagree this is delusion, though, because when you make a choice by your own will, one can reasonably consider this free will. It's only a delusion if you don't accept that who you are is not independent of your genes/environment. But no one here is saying that.

It's a definition, that doesn't mean every word describes something real. Go search what god means and you'll get my point.

You can't act at your own discretion if that means you're acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.

Your definition doesn't work either. There's no human ability to make choices that are not externally determined. That would mean living and acting in a void, which is impossible.

[Excited Penguin]

Poc: I think we're talking at cross purposes

I'm talking about someone suggesting that a potential scientific discovery that we have "no genuine choices" should morally persuade us to change our protocol about who we put in prison; ie. we put no one in prison.

But the premise of the argument removes any meaningfulness from making a change of protocol, because such a change would be beyond our control anyway, should it happen, due to the correctness of the discovery which is hypothetically assumed. We wouldn't do it because this is an accurate and persuasive argument.

I don't know how else to explain it Like I said, it would be like saying "if we have no money, we should spend it on wine."

It's a problem with the logic, not with the science behind free will and such.

You're arguing in vain. Someone making that suggestion would be someone who thinks we lock people up because we want to punish them, and that right there is the real problem with that kind of argument. We lock people up when they harm others, the illusion of free will doesn't stop one from being violent even if it does completely exculpate them. They're still wired to be violent, presumably, and we can't take the risk of letting that person run amok amongst us, regardless of whether they are to be blamed for their actions or not(which they aren't).


Let me better illustrate this by providing you with a thought experiment. Imagine you have the ability to mind control me and make me do whatever you want and then you make me kill a person. Now then, do you think the police should let me be just because you're the one who's controlling me and it's none of my fault, or should they restrain me until they find you and fix the problem?

[PETE_ROSE]

Yes.  Having foreknowledge of things does not shape or change the inevitable outcome.  Knowing Alabama is going to trounce LSU in their own house come November, does not mean they should/will not play the game.