If free will doesn't exist...

[Alcibiades007]

Shouldn't we be 0% judgmental? The 0 there is put on purpose as emphasis that even the peeps we perceive as the dumbest, cringiest, most obnoxious dudes out there, even serial killers shouldn't be judged. Just dealt with rationally with no hard feelings, so to speak.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Due to many people replying w/o reading the thread and posing questions or already explained errors repeatedly I have linked the answers to the most frequent misunderstanding:

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148150015/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148150065/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148150387/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148150593/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148151229/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148151795/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148151927/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148152003/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148152419/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148152503/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148152659/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148153267/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148153469/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148153631/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148164613/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148164839/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148175591/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148190193/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148191029/
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148217235/

 

[Witchhunt]

10/treefiddy.

 

[Swing]

If free will doesn't exist, then we don't get to choose whether or not we're judgmental.

 

[JDragon]

Shouldn't we be 0% judgmental? The 0 there is put on purpose as emphasis that even the peeps we perceive as the dumbest, cringiest, most obnoxious dudes out there, even serial killers shouldn't be judged. Just dealt with rationally with no hard feelings, so to speak.

Thoughts?

I think science has quite conclusively shown that there is no such thing as free will. But acting upon this knowledge isn't straightforward. For example punishment: it seems mean to punish people for what is not their free choice, detention then should only have preventive character. The conclusions are either indesirable or incompatible with how we organize society. I therefore choose to ignore this knowledge.

 

[Alcibiades007]

I think science has quite conclusively shown that there is no such thing as free will. But acting upon this knowledge isn't straightforward. For example punishment: it seems mean to punish people for what is not their free choice, detention then should only have preventive character. The conclusions are either indesirable or incompatible with how we organize society. I therefore choose to ignore this knowledge.

You don't have to ignore the fact that free will doesn't exist to prevent killers/wrong doers from carrying out felonies. Imagine a lion is in front of you and you have a rifle, you might choose to shoot it not as a "punishment" but as a precaution w/o actually hating the lion. Or if it's only outside the house, call 911.

 

[Alcibiades007]

If free will doesn't exist, then we don't get to choose whether or not we're judgmental.

Upon receiving this knowledge, your brain might produce certain electro chemical reactions commanding you not to be judgmental from now on.

 

[Swing]

Upon receiving this knowledge, your brain might produce certain electro chemical reactions commanding you not to be judgmental from now on.

But it might also do the opposite. Maybe my brain rails against the idea of there being no free will by convincing me to be extremely prejudiced. Or maybe, knowing that there's no free will, my conscience simply clears, and I no longer feel responsible for being so judgmental. I feel like it's a wash.

 

[Alcibiades007]

But it might also do the opposite. Maybe my brain rails against the idea of there being no free will by convincing me to be extremely prejudiced. Or maybe, knowing that there's no free will, my conscience simply clears, and I no longer feel responsible for being so judgmental. I feel like it's a wash.

In either case you weren't making the decision. A thought is nothing more than a electro chemical reaction. And that reaction is the sum of only 2 things: 1.External factors 2.Your genetics. None of which were chosen by you to begin with. So basically all the actions and decisions you will ever make are just the product of the applied surrounding world on you genotype. Which is to say that from the moment you're born(even before that), you are on auto-pilot, but because we can't process that in real time, all the resulting actions we make are perceived as free will.

You might say this holds 99% only academical relevance but it's factual nonetheless.

 

[Swing]

In either case you weren't making the decision. A thought is nothing more than a electro chemical reaction. And that reaction is the sum of only 2 things: 1.External factors 2.Your genetics. None of which were chosen by you to begin with. So basically all the actions and decisions you will ever make are just the product of the applied surrounding world on you genotype. Which is to say that from the moment you're born(even before that), you are on auto-pilot, but because we can't process that in real time, all the resulting actions we make are perceived as free will.

You might say this holds 99% only academical relevance but it's factual nonetheless.

Okay, but you aren't disagreeing with or contradicting anything I've said in this thread. My original post wasn't an argument against the idea that there's no free will; it's a statement that a lack of free will renders the question of our reaction to that idea irrelevant.

 

[Alcibiades007]

Okay, but you aren't disagreeing with or contradicting anything I've said in this thread. My original post wasn't an argument against the idea that there's no free will; it's a statement that it renders the question of our reaction to that idea irrelevant.

I suspected you picked on my wording implying we can literally choose not to be judgmental. Human beings live their life accepting the existence of free will a priori because we're not anatomically built to perceive reality as it is.

So when I said "Shouldn't we be 0% judgmental?" it was obviously meant as food for thought.

 

[Swing]

I suspected you picked on my wording implying we can literally choose not to be judgmental. Human beings live their life accepting the existence of free will a priori because we're not anatomically built to perceive reality as it is.

So when I said "Shouldn't we be 0% judgmental?" it was obviously meant as food for thought.

I'm not trying to catch you in a gotchya. But, if there's no free will, it seems more likely to me that someone who is judgmental and then learns of the idea would reject that idea out of hand (as people already do with information that they find to be incompatible with how they feel).

I mean, we are judgmental. It's natural. If there's no free will, then none of our negative reactions make any sense. Why do we feel jealous or spurned if it's not the other person's decision to make us feel that way? And given that practically every human feels these emotions to some degree because we are emotional creatures, I'd argue that we should feel judgmental (at least on the basis that we don't have any say in the matter). It's obviously how we're wired. If the world was meant to be populated by nonjudgmental creatures (and the creatures who fill it can't decide otherwise), then we wouldn't be the ones filling it.

 

[Alcibiades007]

I'm not trying to catch you in a gotchya. But, if there's no free will, it seems more likely to me that someone who is judgmental and then learns of the idea would reject that idea out of hand (as people already do with information that they find to be incompatible with how they feel).

I mean, we are judgmental. It's natural. If there's no free will, then none of our negative reactions make any sense. Why do we feel jealous or spurned if it's not the other person's decision to make us feel that way? And given that practically every human feels these emotions to some degree because we are emotional creatures, I'd argue that we should feel judgmental (at least on the basis that we don't have any say in the matter). It's obviously how we're wired. If the world was meant to be populated by nonjudgmental creatures (and the creatures who fill it can't decide otherwise), then we wouldn't be the ones filling it.

Well you're basically approaching the matter strictly from a David Humeish perspective, but the purpose of enlightenment(no metaphysical connotations here) is for reason to beat emotion into submission as much as possible. You could say that we can't help to not be judgmental but certainly we shouldn't.

And just because we're dominating the world at this point in history, therefore all our traits are positive is sort of an "appeal to accomplishment" fallacy IMO. Even more so, I could see AI easily embodying a much more transcendent existence than ours.

P.S. Again, not being judgmental doesn't mean we don't take action to oppose the wrong doing of others. But this is just one of the exceptional cases were the absence of free will as a fact might hold use in day to day life. Wouldn't you be more at ease knowing that people who really piss you off are just on auto-pilot and not genuinely malevolent in a religious sense? Knowing that I(and anyone else) would do the same thing in his shoes(same genotype and external factors) certainly gives me peace and carry on with my day w/o any hateful thoughts.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

free will does exist, so this is moot

 

[Alcibiades007]

free will does exist, so this is moot

How so?

 

[Swing]

Well you're basically approaching the matter strictly from a David Humeish perspective, but the purpose of enlightenment(no metaphysical connotations here) is for reason to beat emotion into submission as much as possible. You could say that we can't help to not be judgmental but certainly we shouldn't.

And just because we're dominating the world at this point in history, therefore all our traits are positive is sort of an "appeal to accomplishment" fallacy IMO. Even more so, I could see AI easily embodying a much more transcendent existence than ours.

P.S. Again, not being judgmental doesn't mean we don't take action to oppose the wrong doing of others. But this is just one of the exceptional cases were the absence of free will as a fact might hold use in day to day life. Wouldn't you be more at ease knowing that people who really piss you off are just on auto-pilot and not genuinely malevolent in a religious sense? Knowing that I(and anyone else) would do the same thing in his shoes(same genotype and external factors) certainly gives me peace and carry on with my day w/o any hateful thoughts.

I'm not saying our traits are positive just because we're here. I'm saying that I think the idea that we should be better (less judgmental) doesn't fit reality if we can't choose to be better. If we don't get to pick otherwise, how can anyone argue that we should be anything other than what we are without assigning that responsibility to someone who is not us?

No, that wouldn't make me more at ease. It doesn't actually change my reaction to those people at all. Because again, if there's no free will, then my reaction is that I'm perfectly justified in however I feel about them.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

How so?

were you Predestined to type that response to me? or create this thread?

no, right? there's your answer my dude

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

The idea there is no free will is ridiculous and one that does not hold up and those that say there is none, run away quickly when challenged.

No free will? Cannot punish a crime as the person did not chose to do it. No one will say that publicly since it would give license to do harm to them or their family without recourse. Its a dilemma for religious people also. If God governs all things "its Gods will" then how can there be sin? If there is sin, how can God be all powerful? If God is all powerful and there is sin, then how is God not evil for allowing it?

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

The idea there is no free will is ridiculous and one that does not hold up and those that say there is none, run away quickly when challenged.

No free will? Cannot punish a crime as the person did not chose to do it. No one will say that publicly since it would give license to do harm to them or their family without recourse. Its a dilemma for religious people also. If God governs all things "its Gods will" then how can there be sin? If there is sin, how can God be all powerful? If God is all powerful and there is sin, then how is God not evil for allowing it?

I’m not here to push Christianity, but their thinking system is more rational than one that says we have no free will. All of your questions about God there are answered by the bottom line that God gave everyone free will. It’s out of his hands from that moment, and the responsibility is ours.
How destructive can lefties get to be saying that we can’t control ourselves and aren’t responsible?
Well Holy Fuckin Christ!

 

[Alcibiades007]

I'm not saying our traits are positive just because we're here. I'm saying that I think the idea that we should be better (less judgmental) doesn't fit reality if we can't choose to be better. If we don't get to pick otherwise, how can anyone argue that we should be anything other than we are without assigning that responsibility to someone who is not us?.

Since you can't actually consciously perceive the constant auto-pilot mode that we operate in, you do actually have the burden of pondering on your ideologies and plans. Just to give a very vivid example of what actually trying to live(and consequentially fail) by the fact that free will doesn't exist is like think of the following chain of events:
You realize free will doesn't exist and you're on auto pilot, so you lay down on you bed with a very nihilistic mindset and simply let yourself be carried away by the "flow of things" since factually you're fate is decided. After a few hours(maybe days) you're body acts on it's own searching for food and water out of self preservation rendering the quitting attitude futile.

This is essentially the same thing with saying you don'y have to think anymore after you've discovered that free-will doesn't exist. You will have to do so automatically out of self preservation(and will be perceived as actual decision making in real time). The only advantage you gain is that you might be less rage-full at the people around you realizing that in most cases they are unlucky and not malevolent.

 

[Alcibiades007]

The idea there is no free will is ridiculous and one that does not hold up and those that say there is none, run away quickly when challenged.

No free will? Cannot punish a crime as the person did not chose to do it. No one will say that publicly since it would give license to do harm to them or their family without recourse. Its a dilemma for religious people also. If God governs all things "its Gods will" then how can there be sin? If there is sin, how can God be all powerful? If God is all powerful and there is sin, then how is God not evil for allowing it?

Please read the posts I made ITT. Just because there is no free will doesn't mean you will not take action against people committing crimes. Like the lion analogy I made in post #5

And the beautiful part is that even in the context of religion there is no free will. Even if we have souls and God exists; whatever the soul is composed of(ectoplasm or whatever) and where ever it's located, one didn't choose his own soul when he was born. So the only room for intentional malevolence is for God himself lol. Ain't that some serious backfire