|
|
Post by Mork Zookerberg on Jun 8, 2017 6:03:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Jun 8, 2017 6:56:46 GMT
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 8, 2017 10:30:05 GMT
It's a bad question, actually.
The question of whether free will exists is not like the question of whether dark matter exists. It isn't something you can be right or wrong about. Rather, it is just a stance you take over a concept.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 8, 2017 11:20:37 GMT
Yes regardless of whether things are determineD. I am not a determinist or an indeterminist but I still buy it.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 8, 2017 11:22:52 GMT
The free will debate generally rests on how you define free will. If you define it as the freedom to do as you will then yes it exists, but it's also a pretty uninteresting concept. If you mean the freedom to will something irrespective of causal factors then I doubt it exists. Even if random fluctuations on a quantum level could lead to random wants, is randomness freedom? I don't think so. And if we look for a non-random, non-physical cause for your wills (like a hypothetical soul) well you still can't decide the character of your soul, can you? So what the heck could free will be if such a thing were to exist?
Charles Sanders Peirce took the stance that the only reason people debate free will is because they want to know if we can deem people as morally responsible for their actions. He suggested we just cut out the middle man and look at moral responsibility without bothering to contemplate free will at all. I pretty much agree. I don't think you can say people are responsible for their actions - whether you say that means they have free will or not is up to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 8, 2017 11:53:32 GMT
This seems to be a pretty important philosophical discussion and I don't see any threads on it! Hands up here anyone who thinks she or he is a zombie! |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 8, 2017 12:09:17 GMT
He suggested we just cut out the middle man and look at moral responsibility without bothering to contemplate free will at all. I pretty much agree. Yep, skip the pointless metaphysics and get right to what matters to us as people and members of society. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 8, 2017 14:47:26 GMT
This seems to be a pretty important philosophical discussion and I don't see any threads on it! Hands up here anyone who thinks she or he is a zombie! While we're at it, all solipsists raise their hands! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 14:57:44 GMT
Intentional acts exist, yes, try to do 14 times 17 autonomically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 19:45:02 GMT
There is no outside intelligence that has agency over me so that's good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarbiscuits on Jun 16, 2017 8:30:53 GMT
I reject free will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 17, 2017 21:59:13 GMT
Surprised most people chose to answer "no" so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 2:48:26 GMT
Not in any meaningful sense. It's logically and physically impossible to exist in the sense that concept is traditionally understood. The only sense in which it can be said to exist is the 'bait and switch' sense that the likes of Daniel Dennet use in order to avoid alarming people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 12:20:20 GMT
The free will debate generally rests on how you define free will. If you define it as the freedom to do as you will then yes it exists, but it's also a pretty uninteresting concept. If you mean the freedom to will something irrespective of causal factors then I doubt it exists. Even if random fluctuations on a quantum level could lead to random wants, is randomness freedom? I don't think so. And if we look for a non-random, non-physical cause for your wills (like a hypothetical soul) well you still can't decide the character of your soul, can you? So what the heck could free will be if such a thing were to exist? Exactly this. I'm fine with free will meaning something like "the operation of the conscious mind", in which case then obviously we have free will. Maybe that conscious mind runs on strictly deterministic rules, but so what? Everything runs on such rules, or on random quantum weirdness. If you want to say that free will is defined in a way so that it essentially violates the laws of physics, then sure, we don't have free will. But you may as well say we don't have free will because we can't choose to run faster than the speed of light. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 13:07:28 GMT
The free will debate generally rests on how you define free will. If you define it as the freedom to do as you will then yes it exists, but it's also a pretty uninteresting concept. If you mean the freedom to will something irrespective of causal factors then I doubt it exists. Even if random fluctuations on a quantum level could lead to random wants, is randomness freedom? I don't think so. And if we look for a non-random, non-physical cause for your wills (like a hypothetical soul) well you still can't decide the character of your soul, can you? So what the heck could free will be if such a thing were to exist? Exactly this. I'm fine with free will meaning something like "the operation of the conscious mind", in which case then obviously we have free will. Maybe that conscious mind runs on strictly deterministic rules, but so what? Everything runs on such rules, or on random quantum weirdness. If you want to say that free will is defined in a way so that it essentially violates the laws of physics, then sure, we don't have free will. But you may as well say we don't have free will because we can't choose to run faster than the speed of light. That's a bit like taking issue with the definition of 'unicorn' just because such an animal has never been observed in real life. With other concepts, we don't distort meanings in order to ensure that the word has a real life referent. There's no justification for the adjective 'free' to describe the operation of a deterministic system. What is wrong with calling it just 'will'? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 16:16:27 GMT
tpfkar Exactly this. I'm fine with free will meaning something like "the operation of the conscious mind", in which case then obviously we have free will. Maybe that conscious mind runs on strictly deterministic rules, but so what? Everything runs on such rules, or on random quantum weirdness. If you want to say that free will is defined in a way so that it essentially violates the laws of physics, then sure, we don't have free will. But you may as well say we don't have free will because we can't choose to run faster than the speed of light. That's a bit like taking issue with the definition of 'unicorn' just because such an animal has never been observed in real life. With other concepts, we don't distort meanings in order to ensure that the word has a real life referent. There's no justification for the adjective 'free' to describe the operation of a deterministic system. What is wrong with calling it just 'will'? What do you think the meaning of "of your own free will" is?
free |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:39:53 GMT
Exactly this. I'm fine with free will meaning something like "the operation of the conscious mind", in which case then obviously we have free will. Maybe that conscious mind runs on strictly deterministic rules, but so what? Everything runs on such rules, or on random quantum weirdness. If you want to say that free will is defined in a way so that it essentially violates the laws of physics, then sure, we don't have free will. But you may as well say we don't have free will because we can't choose to run faster than the speed of light. That's a bit like taking issue with the definition of 'unicorn' just because such an animal has never been observed in real life. No, it isn't. "Unicorn" is a fairly well defined word. Although they are fictional, when you say "unicorn" everyone knows what you mean. "Free will" is a rather nebulous term. Different people mean different things by it, whether you like it or not. And I didn't do that just then, so we're still good. Except for when there is. Call it that, if it pleases you. I really don't care what label you want to use. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:58:02 GMT
That's a bit like taking issue with the definition of 'unicorn' just because such an animal has never been observed in real life. No, it isn't. "Unicorn" is a fairly well defined word. Although they are fictional, when you say "unicorn" everyone knows what you mean. "Free will" is a rather nebulous term. Different people mean different things by it, whether you like it or not. The problem that we have here is that 'free will' is only ill defined because it would be impossible to coherently explain how absolute free will could work. However, from western theological and philosophical tradition, we can surmise that your version of free will would not cut the mustard, because it would mean that God was responsible for all suffering in the world and would make a mockery of salvation in that only the people that God had chosen from the outset would receive it. The whole point of Christian theology (apart from Calvinism) is that i) you're supposed to have absolute freedom to be saved - it's YOUR choice and not something that is already pre-ordained since the time of creation and ii) God only allows suffering because he wants us to have free will. Moreover, if free will had been defined as loosely as you have done, then criminals would have been treated mercifully throughout history because ultimately they could not have done otherwise. Compatibilist free will does not sit easily alongside even contemporary jurisprudence. Which is? If it's subject to determinism and random quantum fluctuations and we could not have made any choice other than the one we made, that doesn't seem very 'free' to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 21:10:11 GMT
tpfkar No, it isn't. "Unicorn" is a fairly well defined word. Although they are fictional, when you say "unicorn" everyone knows what you mean. "Free will" is a rather nebulous term. Different people mean different things by it, whether you like it or not. The problem that we have here is that 'free will' is only ill defined because it would be impossible to coherently explain how absolute free will could work. However, from western theological and philosophical tradition, we can surmise that your version of free will would not cut the mustard, because it would mean that God was responsible for all suffering in the world and would make a mockery of salvation in that only the people that God had chosen from the outset would receive it. The whole point of Christian theology (apart from Calvinism) is that i) you're supposed to have absolute freedom to be saved - it's YOUR choice and not something that is already pre-ordained since the time of creation and ii) God only allows suffering because he wants us to have free will. Theologically, the faithful can never be made to abandon free will as there is no scientific way to even address an unmeasurable spiritual dimension. As for what can, one simply needs to note that some actually do make it to heaven, and they obviously had free will, so either God chooses to not give all such traits and tools, or he's unable to. Does not follow. Although you can naval-gaze about how people became what they are, they are indeed what they are. A creature with bloodlust still wants to kill you. One who recoils at the idea of harm is infinitely better, regardless of their prior experiences. In dealing with pathologies, one can mitigate responsibility on a continuum, but people are still responsible for their acts absent some other coercion or incapacity being identified. Even then still, as killing an innocent in order to stop one from killing you would still be a blameworthy choice. Also, believing that you have no ultimate control over how you behave fundamentally contradicts rationally arguing for any changes of any other beings, at least absent some hypothalamic motivations, perhaps. Because you are more interested in your goals than in honest appraisal. There will always have only been one choice made. You're still the one making it.
inevitable |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 18, 2017 12:51:41 GMT
Theologically, the faithful can never be made to abandon free will as there is no scientific way to even address an unmeasurable spiritual dimension. Agreed. Within Christian theology there have always been mysteries beyond human ken. Even Calvin didn't reject free will because he found the concept incoherent, but because he thought it was an insult to the majesty of God if we allowed for things outside his control. |
|
