Free will deniers

[Estro Felino]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I prefer free range, or free navigation, or free (whatever applies). There are obviously limits and conditions for everything, so free will as a term, is just something that religious came up with.

 

[Estro Felino]

I prefer free range, or free navigation, or free (whatever applies). There are obviously limits and conditions for everything, so free will as a term, is just something that religious came up with.

As I said...we are not handicapped. Most of us are not retards.
So our choices are the result of our will.


Nobody has ever proved the absence of free will yet.

 

[vulcanlogician]

He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.

I don't know the full context of your conversation, but I've never heard a single philosophy professor say anything like that. Not only is it a sloppy generalization, it is a statement about the psychology of free will... not the metaphysics of it. A philosopher should not be taken as an expert on the psychology of free will.

In psychology, there is the idea of the internal vs. external locus of control. Those with an internal locus of control feel that they are in control of their environment. Those with an external locus of control feel as if events beyond their power are what determine their lives. Furthermore, much research in psychology suggests that people with an internal locus of control tend toward psychological health and are (on average) less prone to certain psychological disorders.

The ideas about the metaphysics of free will seem to line up with these ideas about psychology and locus of control. But they don't. It's apples to oranges. One's locus of control is a primal attitude that one has toward the world and one's of influence over it. It has nothing to do with metaphysics. A metaphysical denier of free will, may well possess an internal locus of control. All that means is that he thinks that his decision-making and choosing has a large impact on the goings-on in his life. (Even though he thinks that decision-making was all predetermined by nature.)

An external locus of control is a learned behavior-- not something that arises due to a theory about free will. For instance, an abused child may have an external locus of control, because he learned in life that he wasn't able to control whether he was abused or not. This person may even think that we have free will, according to what he was able to determine after reading some philosophy about it.

But, anyway, this philosophy professor was either heavily biased -- or perhaps was speaking in a context I'm not aware of. On the surface of it, I think he overstepped his bounds with that particular statement.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know the full context of your conversation, but I've never heard a single philosophy professor say anything like that. Not only is it a sloppy generalization, it is a statement about the psychology of free will... not the metaphysics of it. A philosopher should not be taken as an expert on the psychology of free will.

In psychology, there is the idea of the internal vs. external locus of control. Those with an internal locus of control feel that they are in control of their environment. Those with an external locus of control feel as if events beyond their power are what determine their lives. Furthermore, much research in psychology suggests that people with an internal locus of control tend toward psychological health and are (on average) less prone to certain psychological disorders.

The ideas about the metaphysics of free will seem to line up with these ideas about psychology and locus of control. But they don't. It's apples to oranges. One's locus of control is a primal attitude that one has toward the world and one's of influence over it. It has nothing to do with metaphysics. A metaphysical denier of free will, may well possess an internal locus of control. All that means is that he thinks that his decision-making and choosing has a large impact on the goings-on in his life. (Even though he thinks that decision-making was all predetermined by nature.)

An external locus of control is a learned behavior-- not something that arises due to a theory about free will. For instance, an abused child may have an external locus of control, because he learned in life that he wasn't able to control whether he was abused or not. This person may even think that we have free will, according to what he was able to determine after reading some philosophy about it.

But, anyway, this philosophy professor was either heavily biased -- or perhaps was speaking in a context I'm not aware of. On the surface of it, I think he overstepped his bounds with that particular statement.

Pardon my banal example...but I have to.
I love meat very much. Salami, pepperoni, ham.
But I went veggie....despite all the temptations all around me. I stopped eating meat.
Did I use my magical powers? No. I used my free will.

 

[The Hammer]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I disagree.

I don't fully agree that free will exists, not completely. I think of it more like "restricted will". Some things are set and will always occur the way they did regardless, and others we are free to choose between.

I also don't use my denial of free will as some blanket excuse to be a twat either. Or to excuse my past behaviours.

 

[Estro Felino]

I disagree.

I don't fully agree that free will exists, not completely. I think of it more like "restricted will". Some things are set and will always occur the way they did regardless, and others we are free to choose between.

Let's not exaggerate...though. Most things do not occur regardless of our will.
Just think whether we decide to build a skyscraper in the middle of a forest.
We will have to cut down all trees. Many animals will be displaced. Or they will die.

This thing would have never happened, had we built that skyscraper on a treeless area.
You see? It all depends on our choices.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I think your mentor was making presumptuous overgeneralizations and bad-faith assumptions about others' intentions.

I don't believe in free will or even believe that it is a coherent concept, and I know multiple people who think the same. None of us try to destroy anyone's life. In fact, we've encountered quite a lot of intrusion and threats to our safety and personal boundaries from people who claim to believe in free will but refuse to let us exercise ours (from their perspective).

 

[The Hammer]

Let's not exaggerate...though. Most things do not occur regardless of our will.
Just think whether we decide to build a skyscraper in the middle of a forest.
We will have to cut down all trees. Many animals will be displaced. Or they will die.

This thing would have never happened, had we built that skyscraper on a treeless area.
You see? It's all depend on our choices.

Those choices are absolutely and 100% constrained by every past choice you have ever made, as well as the choices of ones family, parents, nation etc.

Tell me when you chose the nationality and parents you were born to.

 

[Koldo]

Pardon my banal example...but I have to.
I love meat very much. Salami, pepperoni, ham.
But I went veggie....despite all the temptations all around me. I stopped eating meat.
Did I use my magical powers? No. I used my free will.

Do you understand what people are saying when they say they don't believe in the existence of free will?
Because I find that to be the most crucial part. What work or material have you read concerning the denial of free will? Can you quote what part you disagree specifically and explain why?

I am asking because the way you posit this topic makes it seems like you are trying to solve a philosophical question through the use of common sense without reading the other side of the debate. Saying something like "I chose X, therefore I have free will" sounds very uninformed to someone that actually bothered to read about this topic.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think your mentor was making presumptuous overgeneralizations and bad-faith assumptions about others' intentions.

I don't believe in free will or even believe that it is a coherent concept, and I know multiple people who think the same. None of us try to destroy anyone's life. In fact, we've encountered quite a lot of intrusion and threats to our safety and personal boundaries from people who claim to believe in free will but refuse to let us exercise ours (from their perspective).

I am not understanding.
If free will doesn't exist...how can someone prevent you from using it?
It means it exists then. It does exist.

 

[Estro Felino]

Those choices are absolutely and 100% constrained by every past choice you have ever made, as well as the choices of ones family, parents, nation etc.

Tell me when you chose the nationality and parents you were born to.

Absolutely not. Choices are the result of our brain.
The others cannot impose anything on us.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am not understanding.
If free will doesn't exist...how can someone prevent you from using it?

What I meant by that is that many people who claim to believe in free will still want to restrict others' freedom of thought and action. They don't believe in letting others "choose" for themselves despite believing we can do so.

It means it exists then.

I think you're speaking past people in this thread and just trying to confirm a preconceived notion without examining the views you're attacking.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you understand what people are saying when they say they don't believe in the existence of free will?
Because I find that to be the most crucial part. What work or material have you read concerning the denial of free will? Can you quote what part you disagree specifically and explain why?

I am asking because the way you posit this topic makes it seems like you are trying to solve a philosophical question through the use of common sense without reading the other side of the debate. Saying something like "I chose X, therefore I have free will" sounds very uninformed to someone that actually bothered to read about this topic.

The problem is that none of us agrees on what free will is.
Define it, first and then we can talk about it.

 

[Estro Felino]

What I meant by that is that many people who claim to believe in free will still want to restrict others' freedom of thought and action. They don't believe in letting others "choose" for themselves despite believing we can do so.



I think you're speaking past people in this thread and just trying to confirm a preconceived notion without examining the views you're attacking.

First of all. You need to define what free will is.
Maybe we have different notions of it.

First define it,
and then you can explain why you deny its existence.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Debater Slayer]

First of all. You need to define what free will is.
Maybe we have different notions of it.

The capacity for a conscious agent to choose from two or more alternative actions or beliefs without any external or deterministic constraints (including their own biology and upbringing) beyond their control that would affect their decision.

This is a very basic definition, however: there are a lot of other details in the concept of free will that make me see it as incoherent.

First define it,
and then you can explain why you deny its existence.
Thanks in advance.

"Deny" is a loaded word to use here because it seems to imply rejection of an established or evidenced phenomenon. I don't "deny" free will any more than I deny the existence of dragons and fairies, since I don't believe it is a coherent concept to begin with.

 

[Koldo]

The problem is that none of us agrees on what free will is.
Define it, first and then we can talk about it.

You should have done it at the OP... But Ok...

How about this?

It is the freedom to do otherwise. And this is what the freedom to do otherwise means:

"An agent S has the ability to choose or do otherwise than ϕ at time t if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to t, that S choose or do otherwise than ϕ at t."

-source

 

[Estro Felino]

You should have done it at the OP... But Ok...

How about this?

It is the freedom to do otherwise. And this is what the freedom to do otherwise means:

"An agent S has the ability to choose or do otherwise than ϕ at time t if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to t, that S choose or do otherwise than ϕ at t."

-source

I proved that it does exist because I was free to do otherwise.
As I said, you can't even imagine how I love pork.
Becoming a vegetarian was a huge sacrifice. But I succeeded. I did otherwise.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Pardon my banal example...but I have to.
I love meat very much. Salami, pepperoni, ham.
But I went veggie....despite all the temptations all around me. I stopped eating meat.
Did I use my magical powers? No. I used my free will.

That's not at all a banal example. It's a really good one. Proponents of free will are right to argue that it is immediately obvious to us that we are in control of our decisions. Our experience is: you choose something, you do something. It's nearly axiomatic.

But the doubt about free will has to do with our choices having causes. Physical causes. Natural causes. Causes that we puny humans have no control over.

Certain chemical and electrical processes within your brain occured when you chose not to eat salami. Were these within your control? And yet, by the deterministic account, this is what your choice amounted to. And there's something to this. Under laboratory conditions, chemical and electrical events only happen because of prior causes. What makes our brains exempt from these laws of the universe?

If the fact that people make choices disproved determinism, people would have stopped talking about it long ago. The debate is about whether choices are caused by natural events or whether they spontaneously arise when an agent wills it. I think good arguments have been made from both camps. But, if I were a betting man, I think I'd go "no free will."

 

[Estro Felino]

The capacity for a conscious agent to choose from two or more alternative actions or beliefs without any external or deterministic constraints (including their own biology and upbringing) beyond their control that would affect their decision.

Biology and upbringing do surely play a role.
Religion, as well.
There are religions who entirely revolve around free will.