Is Free Will an illusion?

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Another reason for arguing about this particular topic is that it's part of a larger debate between believers in intuitive, magical thinking, and scientific/empirical thinking.

Not to mention moral responsibility.

Amazing that hasn't been brought up yet, actually.

 

[minute bull]

Not to mention moral responsibility.

I think(?) I understand it's a fallacy to compare moral responsibility to whether free will exists or not. You're still responsible, even if there's no free will.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I think(?) I understand it's a fallacy to compare moral responsibility to whether free will exists or not. You're still responsible, even if there's no free will.

I'm not sure I like that too much. Responsibility without freedom of will? Seems like I'm getting all the bad with none of the good.

The arguments I've seen have usually pushed for something like moral responsibility (but not quite, because responsibility becomes difficult to nail down) but a little different. Something like still needing to deter "bad" even if the courses of action are already set. But the language definitely changes.

You might be right. I need to read moar.

 

[minute bull]

Free will or the lack thereof is neither good nor bad. It just is, not to mention the same either way. Before you thought you didn't have free will, you were just as responsible as you still are after you thought you didn't. Same meaning.

For instance, even if determinism was the reason you bought a lottery ticket, it's still you who gets the dollaz if the ticket hits.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Free will or the lack thereof is neither good nor bad. It just is, not to mention the same either way. Before you thought you didn't have free will, you were just as responsible as you still are after you thought you didn't. Same meaning.

I can only be held responsible if I made a decision to act in a wrongful way. If I'm stuck in a determined universe without free will, I can't be punished for not acting differently; by definition that was never a possibility. All of the contingent factors that have moved in to replace my will now bear the responsibility for my action. My biology, my culture, etc. What is my volition but a determined result of those inputs?

So how can I still be held responsible?

Brb nap time.

 

[minute bull]

So how can I really be held responsible?

Because you are the agent of action. The reason that led you to the action does not exonerate you from responsibility.

Determinism doesn't say you can't help but to do the things you do, it says HERE IS WHY you do the things you do. Determinism is no scapegoat.

 

[osudude]

Reignited a debate between a friend and I tonight on the topic of free will so I pose the following question. - Are our decisions determined by a casual chain of preceeding events or are our decisions controlled by ourselves? - My opinion, we have free will. Why else would we have a conscious if every decision we make is predetermined?

Let me ask you this: if you were faced with the same decision twice in which the previous conditions were EXACTLY the same (down to the smallest particle and piece of energy), would you make a different choice?

Your brain is inherently a type of computer processor, it takes inputs and gives outputs. Given the same conditions, the same decision would always be made, hence free will is an illusion. But it doesn't bother me since that's a rather narrow view of free will.

 

[Rekrul]

I can only be held responsible if I made a decision to act in a wrongful way. If I'm stuck in a determined universe without free will, I can't be punished for not acting differently; by definition that was never a possibility. All of the contingent factors that have moved in to replace my will now bear the responsibility for my action. My biology, my culture, etc. What is my volition but a determined result of those inputs?

So how can I still be held responsible?

Brb nap time.

First we would root our definition of morality in subjective experience. Behaving immorally would be something like "intentionally behaving in a way which induces the phenomenological experience "bad" in an other". The degree to which the action is moral/immoral would depend on the intensity of the experience. Our definition of intention would be rooted in experience of consciousness/willfulness. Laws, and punishments would be designed to maximize the net positive experience of the population.

 

[catchwrestle1]

Free will or the lack thereof is neither good nor bad. It just is, not to mention the same either way. Before you thought you didn't have free will, you were just as responsible as you still are after you thought you didn't. Same meaning.

For instance, even if determinism was the reason you bought a lottery ticket, it's still you who gets the dollaz if the ticket hits.

Your comments in this thread have contributed and have been though-provoking.

But in regards to the bolded statement above, I believe you are missing the point. The purpose of this debate isn't to establish 'what you think you thought', or the subjective reasoning and conclusions that can be inferred from choosing to believe in free will or not.

Now I understand everything that we experience is inherently subjective, but we are interesting animals in that we can at least struggle to reach objective conclusions. And THAT (to me) is the purpose of the debate.

Not what anybody thinks they thought, but what is ACTUALLY true... whether free will can exist using logical reasoning as basis for establishing truth. Only then can we truly define responsibility.

But don't look for me to make an argument either way, because I think that we both realize... it's virtually pointless :icon_chee.

And I understand your take on philosophy. My dad always said 'modern' philosophy is a bunch of horseshit. And if you pick up a modern philosophy book, it really is. It's all one big logic puzzle that reads horribly.

The old man always said, "The purpose of philosophy is to give you guidelines with which you can live your life." And he liked the old-school guys (and I do, too) because they at least offered those arguments and guidelines. These days, it's nothing but semantics and it's quite off-putting.

 

[ocean size]

Your comments in this thread have contributed and have been though-provoking.

But in regards to the bolded statement above, I believe you are missing the point. The purpose of this debate isn't to establish 'what you think you thought', or the subjective reasoning and conclusions that can be inferred from choosing to believe in free will or not.

Now I understand everything that we experience is inherently subjective, but we are interesting animals in that we can at least struggle to reach objective conclusions. And THAT (to me) is the purpose of the debate.

Not what anybody thinks they thought, but what is ACTUALLY true... whether free will can exist using logical reasoning as basis for establishing truth. Only then can we truly define responsibility.

But don't look for me to make an argument either way, because I think that we both realize... it's virtually pointless :icon_chee.

And I understand your take on philosophy. My dad always said 'modern' philosophy is a bunch of horseshit. And if you pick up a modern philosophy book, it really is. It's all one big logic puzzle that reads horribly.

The old man always said, "The purpose of philosophy is to give you guidelines with which you can live your life." And he liked the old-school guys (and I do, too) because they at least offered those arguments and guidelines. These days, it's nothing but semantics and it's quite off-putting.

How far back was the old man talking about when he said modern? Whats an example of an old school guy for you?

 

[minute bull]

But in regards to the bolded statement above, I believe you are missing the point. The purpose of this debate isn't to establish 'what you think you thought', or the subjective reasoning and conclusions that can be inferred from choosing to believe in free will or not.

This is the pitfall of what looks like double-talk. I think .... my comment (if it can actually be called a comment) specifically addresses a digression, and what I consider the first hurdle in understanding the concept of FREE WILL AS ILLUSION. Most people tend to conflate free will with Choice or Moral Repercussion and express distress over the perceived obviation of these elements.

I was just reaffirming that the free will debate bears no impact on whether you're gonna get busted for shit, and agree that's rather getting the cart afore the horse.

Now I understand everything that we experience is inherently subjective, but we are interesting animals in that we can at least struggle to reach objective conclusions. And THAT (to me) is the purpose of the debate.

I agree but the debates manifest themselves online as pissing contests trying to make one party feel worse than the other.

Furthermore, I don't think there is much debate that doesn't arise from a lack of understanding. Once understood in its own terms and confined to its own ramifications, debate tends to fall by the wayside.

So to me the purpose of THIS debate looks as though it's meant to rattle a few people who aren't up to speed, and then judge them for how slowly they acculturate.

 

[catchwrestle1]

How far back was the old man talking about when he said modern? Whats an example of an old school guy for you?

Excellent question. When I say modern philosophy, I didn't mean it in the traditional sense, I meant literally modern... like 20th century.

See the bold text below (cited from Wikipedia, where else? I hate to use it, but convenience dictates) :

20th-century philosophy saw the development of a number of new philosophical schools including logical positivism, analytic philosophy, phenomenology, existentialism and poststructuralism. In terms of the eras of philosophy, it is usually labelled as contemporary philosophy (succeeding modern philosophy which runs roughly from the time of Descartes until the twentieth-century).

As with other academic disciplines, philosophy increasingly became professionalized in the twentieth century, and a split emerged between philosophers who considered themselves to be part of either the "analytic" or "continental" traditions. However, there have been disputes regarding both the terminology and the reasons behind the divide, as well as philosophers who see themselves as bridging the divide[who?]. In addition, philosophy in the twentieth century became increasingly technical and harder to read by the layman.

I'll go into more detail later... but I hope you get the point.

 

[catchwrestle1]

This is the pitfall of what looks like double-talk. I think .... my comment (if it can actually be called a comment) specifically addresses a digression, and what I consider the first hurdle in understanding the concept of FREE WILL AS ILLUSION. Most people tend to conflate free will with Choice or Moral Repercussion and express distress over the perceived obviation of these elements.

I was just reaffirming that the free will debate bears no impact on whether you're gonna get busted for shit, and agree that's rather getting the cart afore the horse.


I agree but the debates manifest themselves online as pissing contests trying to make one party feel worse than the other.

Furthermore, I don't think there is much debate that doesn't arise from a lack of understanding. Once understood in its own terms and confined to its own ramifications, debate tends to fall by the wayside.

So to me the purpose of THIS debate looks as though it's meant to rattle a few people who aren't up to speed, and then judge them for how slowly they acculturate.

I know firsthand what you are referring to (pissing contests), but this thread has been a pretty good example of reasonable debate. I know I haven't tried to rattle anyone's bones or judge them.

And I went back and looked at your comment that I quoted earlier and it does appear I took it somewhat out of context... I do see the point you were making and it doesn't look like I should have reexamined it in such a way. I'm actually a big fan of doublespeak. :icon_chee

Figuring out why we are debating this concept is part of the fun to me.

 

[minute bull]

What are your thoughts on the importance of illusion?

Anyone can answer.

 

[MortalWombat]

I can only be held responsible if I made a decision to act in a wrongful way. If I'm stuck in a determined universe without free will, I can't be punished for not acting differently; by definition that was never a possibility. All of the contingent factors that have moved in to replace my will now bear the responsibility for my action. My biology, my culture, etc. What is my volition but a determined result of those inputs?

So how can I still be held responsible?

Brb nap time.

You are not being punished for the physical act that belongs in the physical universe. We are not punishing the molecules that carried the electrochemical signals that cause "your" hand to punch someone in the face or the electromagnetic interactions that mean that the bones of the face broke on impact, nor the bones themselves nor evolution that.... blah blah blah.

The bit of you that is being punished lives in the same plane as the one where the non-physical "you" appreciates "guilt" and experiences "regret" and "shame". And I don't mean the biochemical interactions that accompany or shortly precede the actual experience of it, but the subjective experience itself. That part is able to appreciate the concept of "wrong" and be influenced when someone with a bigger stick attempts to inculcate a stronger or slightly different version of the concept in you.

 

[MortalWombat]

Which is why I think a good start for morality discussions is "genetics and mother's love for her newborn and society's norms" or maybe, maybe even "proteins that cause sponges to bind together" but not "conditions that existed just before the big bang".

 

[minute bull]

universal tracking computer =/= god, gotcha.

 

[catchwrestle1]

You are not being punished for the physical act that belongs in the physical universe. We are not punishing the molecules that carried the electrochemical signals that cause "your" hand to punch someone in the face or the electromagnetic interactions that mean that the bones of the face broke on impact, nor the bones themselves nor evolution that.... blah blah blah.

The bit of you that is being punished lives in the same plane as the one where the non-physical "you" appreciates "guilt" and experiences "regret" and "shame". And I don't mean the biochemical interactions that accompany or shortly precede the actual experience of it, but the subjective experience itself. That part is able to appreciate the concept of "wrong" and be influenced when someone with a bigger stick attempts to inculcate a stronger or slightly different version of the concept in you.

I can understand the merit of your argument, but I strongly disagree that there is a "non-physical you" that lives or exists anywhere outside the human brain.

If you mean the conceptual 'you', the concept of self, then I see your point. Is that what you meant? Do you really think there is a part of you that is non-physical? If so, I'm certainly interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[MortalWombat]

universal tracking computer =/= god, gotcha.

I can tell this is seriously clever. I have no idea what it refers to or whether I should be answering it.

I can understand the merit of your argument, but I strongly disagree that there is a "non-physical you" that lives or exists anywhere outside the human brain.

If you mean the conceptual 'you', the concept of self, then I see your point. Is that what you meant? Do you really think there is a part of you that is non-physical? If so, I'm certainly interested in hearing your thoughts.

What I'm saying is attempting to tie morality to the concrete physical reality might well end up with 3 year olds crying "But mommy, Big Bang made me do it" every time.

I'll think about it more...

 

[catchwrestle1]

What are your thoughts on the importance of illusion?

Anyone can answer.

Illusion is an incredibly powerful concept. It is paradoxical in nature, in that it isn't the 'right' or 'wrong' way to see things. As an idea, illusion can help identify the importance of sensory input as it relates to how we see the world.