A challenge to show me wrong

[Koldo]

Why would you not be held accountable? If you are judged incompetent or unwilling to behave in a manner that others find dependable, you are dealt with accordingly--usually incarceration, restraint, compulsory medication, standing in the corner, no allowance, etc. Some people behave "correctly" or "normally" in order to gain the approval of others and/or avoid punishment. If you do not monitor your own behavior in a responsible way, then you are held accountable by your peers or by authorities.

The problem is that, according with determinism line of thought, we could not have done otherwise. We can not choose to monitor our own behavior in a responsible way.

We are either compelled by our will to do it, or not. There is no choice involved. We are no more responsible for our actions than the second piece of a falling set of dominoes is. In determinism, we are not moral agents.

 

[blackout]

Couldn't help mySelf.

 

[blackout]

Couldn't help mySelf again. ...

 

[blackout]

Sorry. :sorry1:

 

[blackout]

I can't help but like things in threes.

Just as none of you couldn't help
your non responses to my posts #28 and #29.

s'all good.
bad.
and in between.

 

[Willamena]

It all comes down to whether we really have a choice, or just feel like we do.

Or choose to feel like we do. Or pretend like we feel we choose to feel like we do.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem is that, according with determinism line of thought, we could not have done otherwise. We can not choose to monitor our own behavior in a responsible way.

According to determinism, everything has a cause. Free will does not contradict that. It just tells us that we are free to choose to carry our out will. "Free will" does not mean that our "will" is undetermined. It means that nothing impedes our freedom of action--what we will to do. If you tried to move your arm, and it failed to move, then your free choice would be impeded. Free will is about having control over one's actions. In most cases, people think of free will in terms of a conflict of desire, where they ultimately achieve their greatest desire unobstructed.

Robots actually have freedom of choice, although we don't conventionally acknowledge that. Nondeterministic programming techniques provide robots with an array of goals, and circumstances provide them with decisions to make. What a robot ultimately decides is often not predictable in advance, because it calculates its actions on the basis of a large number of conflicting goals. Programmers do not necessarily know in advance what set of circumstances will trigger what behavior, although they can hazard guesses, just as we humans can hazard guesses as to how other humans will behave.

We are either compelled by our will to do it, or not. There is no choice involved. We are no more responsible for our actions than the second piece of a falling set of dominoes is. In determinism, we are not moral agents.

Before you make such a bold claim, you should think long and hard about what it means to be a "moral agent". Morality is a causal factor in what determines behavior.

 

[blackout]

Moral agents
are those who try and sell you on
whatever moral systems they happen to 'represent'.

For whatever reasons, however,
not everybody 'buys' every'thing
that every'body is peddling.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or choose to feel like we do. Or pretend like we feel we choose to feel like we do.

Or are under the thrall of a sociologically and biologically-dictated delusion that we choose.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Free will" does not mean that our "will" is undetermined. It means that nothing impedes our freedom of action--what we will to do. If you tried to move your arm, and it failed to move, then your free choice would be impeded. Free will is about having control over one's actions.

So having a medical situation that impedes the movement of my arm is a restriction to my Free Will?

How is that any different from the thousands of other constraints to my options that exist anyway?

Seems to me that a far more accurate name for Free Will would be Breach From External Pressures.

In most cases, people think of free will in terms of a conflict of desire, where they ultimately achieve their greatest desire unobstructed.

And by that point we are lost in so many premises that are either dubious or in dire need of better exploration already...

For one, how often do people even have a stable, greater desire? For another, is it even healthy to settle such conflicts?

 

[Kathryn]

Well. I've been reading all these responses and it seems to me that this idea of the absence of free will, and the concept that we are all simply microorganisms preprogrammed to react to certain stimuli in such certain ways that no other way is possible, sounds to me, frankly, like...

An excuse.

A cop out.

This concept, taken to it's natural conclusion, would strip anyone of any responsibility for their actions. I don't buy that for a minute.

People CAN be motivated, encouraged, and even scared into actions and patterns which go against their natural inclinations. And since our natural inclinations are often less than noble, I think that's a good thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well. I've been reading all these responses and it seems to me that this idea of the absence of free will, and the concept that we are all simply microorganisms preprogrammed to react to certain stimuli in such certain ways that no other way is possible, sounds to me, frankly, like...

An excuse.

A cop out.

Of course. If you believe that there is such a thing as Free Will, what else could you think?

The challenge, however, is defining and showing that it exists, and what consequences it would entail if it did exist.

This concept, taken to it's natural conclusion, would strip anyone of any responsibility for their actions. I don't buy that for a minute.

Neither do I, really. Why exactly such an opposite extreme shouldn't be taken is another interesting question.

People CAN be motivated, encouraged, and even scared into actions and patterns which go against their natural inclinations. And since our natural inclinations are often less than noble, I think that's a good thing.

It often is. But, alas, hardly always.

 

[Willamena]

Or are under the thrall of a sociologically and biologically-dictated delusion that we choose.

A "choice" that is sociologically and biologically dictated is no less a choice as long as it's made by "you and me."

It's when we can claim that sociological and biological "forces" made a "choice" that we have to start reviewing what our words mean.

Edit: Just to clarify, that would be because the action of "making a choice" implies the forces are intelligent, able to review options, and could have chosen otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

Well. I've been reading all these responses and it seems to me that this idea of the absence of free will, and the concept that we are all simply microorganisms preprogrammed to react to certain stimuli in such certain ways that no other way is possible, sounds to me, frankly, like...

An excuse.

A cop out.

It's hard to get away from the idea that "everything happens for a reason," that ingrained belief in destiny. Even people who deny the deterministic image of "programming" will say, "but I do think everything happens for a reason..."

(Just to clarify: It's hard to get away from because they're right.)

 

[LuisDantas]

A "choice" that is sociologically and biologically dictated is no less a choice as long as it's made by "you and me."

It's when we can claim that sociological and biological "forces" made a "choice" that we have to start reviewing what our words mean.

Edit: Just to clarify, that would be because the action of "making a choice" implies the forces are intelligent, able to review options, and could have chosen otherwise.

Maybe I should try coming back to you some other time. As of now I have no idea what you mean, unfortunately.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Saying you have no free will does not mean you don't have the ability to have free will unless you are unable to speak or move your limbs or otherwise communicate.

I feel sorry for people who believe they have no free will. If I thought that, I would most likely kill myself.

Many times I have wanted to close my business. I am tired of the hassles. The thing is, I like the things my business provides for me. If I was a fatalist, I would believe I have no free will to close my business.

One day I may wake up and strip down naked and walk into the woods never to return to society.

I have that ability each and every day, so I have free will. I most likely would have more challenges out in the woods, and it would be a tough choice for me, but it is still my choice.

If I did not believe in myself and my ability to survive in the woods, I could see where I could convince myself that I do not have free will.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that everything has PURPOSE. No action we take can be brushed aside as purposeless. However, I also believe that we can choose options, and as we do so, outcomes and therefore purposes can be influenced and directions can change.

As a Christian, I believe that though our human minds may not be able to grasp how free will and predestination work together - they do work together. Not predestination in the Calvinistic sense (I think Calvin was a nut), but I believe that there are enough passages in scripture that point to the importance of both concepts to support the idea that God probably has a better handle on how these two work together than we do.

Are our actions, as humans, predictable? Yes, of course they are - if they weren't, no one could make a living in marketing. But we can also delightfully, or woefully, surprise, not only others around us, but even ourselves, when it comes to altering our thought patterns, our behavior, and therefore our lives and the lives of those around us.

I have to say, I do find this particular dichotomy strange - that some of those who so vehemently speak out against the concept of a god or a Higher Power - one who would "rule the world and our actions so omnipotently" - so often embrace the concept that, in the end, we are powerless, that our actions and "choices" (even the noble, altruistic ones) are nothing more than a pre programmed response to stimuli.

I can hardly think of a bleaker picture of mankind's purpose. No purpose really, that I can tell.

You may think that if you will - and your life will certainly reflect that philosophy, for better or for worse.

I prefer to believe that my life has some purpose, and that good choices will better the world around me.

Never underestimate the motivational power of a sense of purpose.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Could it be that people who do not believe in free will just don't want to take responsibility for their lot in life?

Could it be that these folks just cannot see that if they took risks and pushed themselves beyond their comfort zone that they do indeed have free will?

 

[Willamena]

Maybe I should try coming back to you some other time. As of now I have no idea what you mean, unfortunately.

You suggested that biological and sociological forces have shaped us in a particular way such that we operate under a delusion that we make a "choice." I'm saying what you've described isn't a delusion. I'm saying as long as it's "us" making the choice --as long as there's "you" and "me" in the picture, and there always will be as long as we're employing verbs that speak directly to mental actions --it is no less "choice." No less than it always was.

 

[Skwim]

Well. I've been reading all these responses and it seems to me that this idea of the absence of free will, and the concept that we are all simply microorganisms preprogrammed to react to certain stimuli in such certain ways that no other way is possible, sounds to me, frankly, like...

An excuse.

A cop out.

It's hard to get away from the idea that "everything happens for a reason," that ingrained belief in destiny. Even people who deny the deterministic image of "programming" will say, "but I do think everything happens for a reason..."

Right. And while Kathryn may think it's an excuse and a cop out, I have to ask her if she's ever seen anyone use it this way. I sure haven''t, and as a hard determinist myself I've never regarded it in such a way. The problem with her notion is that it assumes that no one really believes in a deterministic world. That at heart everyone on earth believes in free will. It's a presumptuous conceit, but, of course, one she had no choice in coming to.

Saying you have no free will does not mean you don't have the ability to have free will unless you are unable to speak or move your limbs or otherwise communicate.

I feel sorry for people who believe they have no free will. If I thought that, I would most likely kill myself.

Only if that's what the cause/effect events led to. For myself, they have not.

If I did not believe in myself and my ability to survive in the woods, I could see where I could convince myself that I do not have free will.

Only if that's what the cause/effect events led to.

I know this sounds like a broken record, but evidently it's something you're not taking into consideration.

Could it be that people who do not believe in free will just don't want to take responsibility for their lot in life?

See my reply to Willamena above.

Could it be that these folks just cannot see that if they took risks and pushed themselves beyond their comfort zone that they do indeed have free will?

Just what are these risks and comfort zones you speak of that determinists are not taking and pushing themselves beyond?

Are our actions, as humans, predictable? Yes, of course they are - if they weren't, no one could make a living in marketing.

Don't you mean some of our actions? If all of our actions are predictable then it necessarily means that their causes are knowable, which, in turn, implies that all our actions are caused, even our thoughts and "choices."