Free Will - Yes/No?

[Excited Penguin]

Nothing exists outside the mind, to argue otherwise is completely irrational.

LOL that that's hilarious. So I take it you don't believe in evolution then because as far as you are concerned nothing existed until minds capable of conceptualizing existence existed...

Existence is a mental concept.

No the concept of existence is a concept. Existence is not a concept. The concept of existence is a concept. A cup of coffee is not a concept. The concept of a cup of coffee is a concept. Love is not a concept. The concept of love is a concept. God is not a concept. The concept of God is a concept. Superman is not a concept. The concept of superman is a concept. A cheeseburger is not a concept. The concept of a cheeseburger is a concept. [fill in the blank] is not a concept. The concept of [blank] is a concept. Existence and essence are separate, what something is and whether it exists is a separate question. Get it yet?

Without the mind, there are no mental concepts. Thus no existence.

Without the mind, there are no mental concepts. Thus no concept of existence.
Without the mind there is still the rest of reality. Thus there is an existence (besides again, what on earth would the nonexistence of existence itself be?).

I don't believe objective reality doesn't exist outside the mind, I know for a fact it doesn't.

If you redefine existence to mean "the concept of existence", sure. But if the concept of existence is existence then wouldn't that make the concept of that be the concept of the concept of existence? Furthermore what about actual existence, actual objective reality? Do you call that reality but like to redefine existence as "the concept of existence" so if it's a concept what is it a concept of? Itself? But it itself is a concept so it's a concept of a concept of itself? That's completely vacuous EP.

Are you saying objective reality is identical with the concept of objective reality?

Again, it's pretty simple, you're just over-complicating stuff.

You're confusing terms. If "existence" is just a concept then what is it a concept of? And what is actual objective reality indepndent of whether minds exist then, what would you call that? Would you not call that "existence"?

-Hammy

Solipsism.

[RozKek]

When I say I have free will what I mean is I'm not forced to do things, but I don't believe in free will in the context that I decide what my will is i.e what I want to do, what I like etc.

All in all, I don't believe our will is free but I believe the universe is indeterministic because Does God place dice? But it is completely irrelevant. Whether it's my decision or not I'll pick the chocolate everytime because that's what makes me happy.

[Excited Penguin]

The concept of a concept is a tautology, it doesn't create the infinite regression you seem to think it does. I'm actually really dissapointed in you, I thought we were getting somewhere and then you dumped all these rationalizations on me that are all beside the point. You're not going to agree with me on principle it seems, whether you're taking that stance consciously or not.

My words remain simple. The mind is all there is. I take a solipsistic view and I consider it to be the most rational one(the only rational one, by necessity, but let's not dwell on that, you seem a little touchy about the subject as it is). There is no world outside of the mind because there's no language to describe it, for one, no mental processes to understand it, to grasp it. A universe bereft of consciousness is one without meaning, literally. And meaning is everything. I don't know how else to drive this point home, so I'm just going to let it be, for now.

[emjay]

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

My mindset when it comes to free will vs determinism basically boils down to.

1) It's not an important question, we're here now, let's get on with it.

2) Because I care so little about if we have free will or if everything is determined and I'm not intelligent enough to fathom proof for either side and I have 0 motivation to look over all the proof for either side, I'm basically just going to pick the option which I feel psychologically makes me feel better.

For me everything being predetermined, the idea of it, takes away the passion I have for life.  Like if a warrior is a believer of determinism and he goes to the battlefield wondering "Hmmm I wonder who will be predetermined to win this battle."  I think it will be detrimental to his frame of mind as opposed to a warrior who is set on a achieving a personal victory and doesn't just see the battle as a bunch of predetermined statistics and numbers.

If this question wasn't asked in a thread on this forum I'd just totally ignore it because I don't give a shit about the answer of free will vs determinism, but since the question is being asked and I do sometimes consider the question to myself this is my answer and I fully admit my answer is based purely on emotion and psychology.

Just jumping in here. In my view determinism is not the same thing as fatalism. From the perspective of the system it's logically impossible to have knowledge of the future, so I disagree that determinism should have any negative effect on the quality of life. Thinking like that for that warrior would be a futile exercise and lead to all sorts of paradoxes. As a hard determinist I certainly don't think like that. If you start trying to second-guess a 'foretold' future, you can always change it so it's impossible, even hypothetically for the experience of free will and knowledge of the future to co-exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay, just looking up the definition of that, do you think I come across more as a soft determinist? I see it that from the perspective of the system (ie us) there is free will but that's part of its 'design'... in reality it's all a play, both what's on stage and the audience.

In some ways you seem like a soft determinist but when you speak of the clockwork universe you sound more like a hard determinist. I'm a hard determinist but even if determinism was false I wouldn't believe in free will because I think it's a logically incoherent concept at worst and stating the obvious at best (depending on which version of "free will" we're talking about).

If you believe in a fully deterministic or 'clockwork' universe and you believe that free will is compatible with that universe, then you're a compatabilist/soft determinist. If you believe free will is incompatabile with that, then you're an incompatabilist/hard determinist.

I personally believe any definition of 'free will' compatible with a fully deterministic or 'clockwork' universe isn't anything anyone questioned the existence of anyway. Many people believe that we 'could have done otherwise' that we're not fully determined, and that we have some kind of ultimate freedom to our wills. Then the compatabilists step in and basically say that we are not always fully coerced and we have choices and make decisions and so therefore free will exists. But that was never into question anyway, it's like redefining our will from "will" to "free will", it's like simply adding the "free" part merely because we have normal human freedom that was never to be doubted anyway.

Compatabilists say "So what if our desires are ultimately caused by cause and effect in the universe? They're still our desires. So what if we have no control over making red blood cells, it's still us.".... even though we have no choice over it whatsoever which is kind of the whole point of free will. I agree with Sam Harris that the compatabilist version of free will is basically "a puppet is free so long as it loves its strings".

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

Just jumping in here. In my view determinism is not the same thing as fatalism. From the perspective of the system it's logically impossible to have knowledge of the future, so I disagree that determinism should have any negative effect on the quality of life. Thinking like that for that warrior would be a futile exercise and lead to all sorts of paradoxes. As a hard determinist I certainly don't think like that. If you start trying to second-guess a 'foretold' future, you can always change it so it's impossible, even hypothetically for the experience of free will and knowledge of the future to co-exist.

I am in full agreement here. As a caveat I would add that although any particular future is indeed 100% unknowable and fatalism is false... the future whatever it is, whatever will happen, is unavoidable or in other words inevitable, whether determinism is true or false. If we define the future itself as "whatever will happen" then that's gonna happen, whatever it is, we can't avoid that.

I would say that determinism is the notion that there is always only one physically possible future, we just have no idea what that future is.

Fatalism is false because it's like pretending we're not part of the causal chain, when we are. It makes no sense to behave as if determinism implies the attitude of "Why bother doing anything?": To paraphrase Sam Harris who is a hard determinist himself, he said about his book on the matter "If I had not decided to write my book it would not have written itself."

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

The concept of a concept is a tautology

I'm saying that you're defining existence itself as merely a concept, and I'm asking then what the concept of that would be? My question was rhetorical that's the whole point. It makes no sense to define existence itself as a concept. Something is that something, the concept of that something is the concept of that something. Essence and existence are separate. On the one hand you have something, on the other hand you have the concept of it. On the one hand you have the question of what that something is, on the other hand you have the question of whether it exists. That's the most basic elementary metaphysics.

it doesn't create the infinite regression you seem to think it does. I'm actually really dissapointed in you, I thought we were getting somewhere and then you dumped all these rationalizations on me that are all beside the point.

That's how I feel about you. Do you still seriously stand by existence itself being a concept?

As I said, that would imply that evolution is false because before minds evolved nothing would exist to conceptualize existence. Do you not see the hugely illogical flaw in defining existence itself as a concept? The concept of existence is a concept, existence is not a concept.

You're not going to agree with me on principle it seems, whether you're taking that stance consciously or not.

What I'm saying actually makes sense. Again, you think nothing would exist without minds to conceive of the concept of existence? You do realize reality itself and the concept of reality is entirely separate right?

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

My words remain simple. The mind is all there is. I take a solipsistic view and I consider it to be the most rational one[...]

Okay we're done!



-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

There is no world outside of the mind because there's no language to describe it[...]

Anyone wanna play "spot the penguin making a non-sequitur" with me?



-Hammy

[emjay]

Okay, just looking up the definition of that, do you think I come across more as a soft determinist? I see it that from the perspective of the system (ie us) there is free will but that's part of its 'design'... in reality it's all a play, both what's on stage and the audience.

In some ways you seem like a soft determinist but when you speak of the clockwork universe you sound more like a hard determinist. I'm a hard determinist but even if determinism was false I wouldn't believe in free will because I think it's a logically incoherent concept at worst and stating the obvious at best (depending on which version of "free will" we're talking about).

If you believe in a fully deterministic or 'clockwork' universe and you believe that free will is compatible with that universe, then you're a compatabilist/soft determinist. If you believe free will is incompatabile with that, then you're an incompatabilist/hard determinist.

I personally believe any definition of 'free will' compatible with a fully deterministic or 'clockwork' universe isn't anything anyone questioned the existence of anyway. Many people believe that we 'could have done otherwise' that we're not fully determined, and that we have some kind of ultimate freedom to our wills. Then the compatabilists step in and basically say that we are not always fully coerced and we have choices and make decisions and so therefore free will exists. But that was never into question anyway, it's like redefining our will from "will" to "free will", it's like simply adding the "free" part merely because we have normal human freedom that was never to be doubted anyway.

Compatabilists say "So what if our desires are ultimately caused by cause and effect in the universe? They're still our desires. So what if we have no control over making red blood cells, it's still us.".... even though we have no choice over it whatsoever which is kind of the whole point of free will. I agree with Sam Harris that the compatabilist version of free will is basically "a puppet is free so long as it loves its strings".

-Hammy

Basically 'I' have the feeling of making choices, but both the 'I' and the feeling of willing a choice are both parts of a greater illusion which is determined. I can be aware of that illusion at an intellectual level but I live in real time within that illusion so I act according to my nature and think in terms of making choices... but I know they're not real. So from in here it feels like choice but actually the neural networks of my brain do all the processing and that is entirely determined. But everything I've ever done or has ever happened to me in the past, could not have been any other way... every single thought that I have ever experienced could not have been any other way... right down to when I have 'decided' to scratch my arse

All this stuff of compatabilists tbh doesn't make much sense to me and is not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about free will.