Free Will? [Thread Split]

[Ogion]

Yes, it seems to be a question of definition.
You know, actually i don't like 'time plays', for example in a science fiction series i hate the episodes with time travel.
And since it isn't completely ontopic anymore i'd suggest to let it be and return to the other topic

Ogion

 

[Agent Intellect]

so basically what you're saying is, if i have to go to work, but i'd get shot coming out my apartment, i use my calculations and see myself making the calculations and not going to work, so that not going to work is the "actual future" even if i never found out that i would have been shot had i actually gone to work?

wouldn't the vision of myself doing the calculations just be me seeing myself doing the calculations to see myself doing the calculations (on an on) of the "actual future" (the one where i stay home)?

if i had to go to work, why would i suddenly decide not to just because my calculations predicted that i wasn't, even if i didn't know the consequences of actually going? i'd need to know that i was going to get shot to not end up going, so if i don't know i'm going to get shot, i'm going to go, which makes getting shot the "actual future", but knowing this makes me change the "actual future".

so how can there be an "actual future" if knowledge of it will make me change it? and how do i get knowledge of it if me getting knowledge of it is part of the "actual future"?

with free choice, you would see that theres only a probability of getting shot, and depending on what you do up until the event, that probability would change in one direction or the other based on new data and new variables.

 

[Jordan~]

No, just that it would negate the events that it could prevent. It would be a very, very big cause - it would cancel out so many theoretically possible realities. All those that it would lead to not coming about would, uh, not come about. So it wouldn't show anything that might make people try to avoid that thing. Does that make sense?

 

[Auburn]

I agree. Let me try to put it in a scenario:

A man suddenly acquires all the knowledge of the universe (not necessarily the "future" yet, just the arrangement of every particle in our universe). At the very moment he acquires this knowledge, he is able to calculate the atoms of every gunman in the world and the process they are naturally going to take towards him to try and shoot him, but also calculates his own processes that he will take to prevent it because of his new knowledge.

EDIT: Hey! Wow, I'm a senior member now! hehehe​

 

[Auburn]

By the way guys - I think maybe this concept we're dealing with itself is a flawed idea to begin with, hence all this confusion. To hypothesize what would happen if an individual were suddenly given all knowledge of all the particles of the universe and their position, and calculations - is not only physically impossible, but hypothetically contradictory.

He would then also have to know every atom in his own body, and mind. He would think about what he's going to think, which is about what he's going to think, and so on forever. This creates a loop effect - a paradox of some sort. I can't explain it, but it's there...

To hypothesize an individual with this knowledge may very well be a paradox, but I'm not really arguing that in order for determinism to work, this paradox with an individual must be explained. I don't believe an individual could have all this knowledge, and hypothesizing about what would happen if he did only causes more abstract thought - but doesn't disprove determinism.

The concept I presented -

Were it possible for one to know the exact location of every atom in our world, and in space, and if one knew every law of reality to its fullest, being acquainted with every chemical process, then – knowing everything in the world, one could, by mathematical calculation alone, predict how the world would unfold and become hundreds of years in the future -down to the very atom.

- does not refer to a human being knowing all of this - but says that if everything were merely understood - not by anything/one in particular - then by mathematical calculation the future could be determined.

Then if this individual is a spectator outside the universe, therefore not part of or subject to the deterministic universe, then does not this negate the axiom that everything is determined?

why? keep in mind everything would be determined.

In this illustration the spectator is not "someone" - we're just using a "spectator" as an example to let us visualize this, but the "spectator" doesn't exist.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I know that I threw a small monkey wrench into this discussion previously, but determinism has always bothered me.
If everything is determined by previous events, then is determinism identical to fate?
Is there a subtle difference between the two which I am not comprehending?
I can see that determinism does not deny choice, but states that each choice is structured on prior events which seems to rub the wrong way for some reason I can not fathom.
I do see Time as being non-linear, more holographic perhaps, or multi-streamed?
(hmmm.... brain hurting)

 

[Auburn]

Quite honestly, I do believe in *Destiny* for this same reason. In day to day language I say that I believe in destiny rather than to say I believe in *hard determinism* - for simplistic reasons.

 

[Jordan~]

"Fate" implies some sort of will behind it, I think, or a supernatural force ordering it all.

 

[Agent Intellect]

"Fate" implies some sort of will behind it, I think, or a supernatural force ordering it all.

exactly. fate suggests purpose behind how things are determined. whether things are strictly determined or not, i don't think anyone is here to fulfill a purpose. determinism would just mean that you can't help but not have a purpose.

 

[scorpiomover]

Perceptual psychologists have done a lot of experiments into perception, by studying optical illusions, auditory illusions, and illusions of taste, touch, and smell. What they have found, is that you see what you believe.

Marketing psychologists have also done experiments into how brands get you to buy their products. They have also found, that the brand's image alters how you experience the food, and that if you associate the brand with things you like, you will say that brand's food and drink tastes better.

 

[Jah]

Here's two articles relating to Free Will:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/

 

[OverCaes]

I think you can either choose to believe and trust in this God, or believe in the illusion that is the world we live in. The world is constantly changing; shifting its form. Would you choose to follow the ever changing current, or hold steadfast to the stability of the word of God.

This is only my humble opinion.

 

[Jordan~]

Would you choose to follow the ever changing current, or hold steadfast to the stability of the word of God.

I think that really depends on whether or not it's possible to choose freely, which is the subject of this thread.

 

[OverCaes]

I think that really depends on whether or not it's possible to choose freely, which is the subject of this thread.

I understand that. What do you think it is people are choosing?

 

[Jordan~]

Well, nothing, personally; I don't think they can. But I think their predetermined behaviour is the same as what they'd do if they did have free will, because the belief in free will will play a role in determining their behaviour. That still doesn't mean that they're free to stray from a certain course, but it does mean that they wouldn't have strayed from that course if they could. It's great, you can believe that you're doing what you'd want to anyway without castigating people with blame.

 

[OverCaes]

what would you say comes after death?

 

[Jordan~]

I don't intend to find out. Assuming I'll die in this day and age seems unambitious and pessimistic, to me. I'd tentatively say nothing, though, based on the fact that there's no observable transference of information after death. Everything is accounted for by the same natural laws that govern everything else, there's no mysteriously vanishing energy that could be going somewhere else. If there's an undetectable soul, I don't have any reason to believe in it any more than I have reason to believe I'm covered in undetectable spiders. I don't find it convincing for the same reason.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

There seems to be an assumption present in attacks on free will that if we are able to quite accurately deterministically account for our actions, then this belittles the importance of the will, to the point even of making it an illusion altogether. Such a claim is preposterous, however - all they are doing is describing the nature of the will, not arguing for its inexistence. That the world is given to us merely as Representation, and that this Representation is causal-deterministic implies simply that - that our Representations are causal-deterministic. Our Will remains untouched, and will always remain so. The laws of karma precede the laws of physics.

 

[OverCaes]

Let's assume we are all covered in undetectable spiders. I would not spend more than an instant considering it, because the spiders are not affecting me in any way. The undetectable soul is something worth considering.

A human being can't be run by random electrical impulses, because we are not machines or regular 'beasts' of the earth. We think, therefore we are. The undetectable soul is that which knows the difference between good and evil, right or wrong, this or that, black and white. If god is in fact an omnipotent being; the first soul/spirit, and we are its creations, it would make sense to think we possess a little part of it. A part of it's 'genetics.' And if god is just a soul/spirit, the only trait we could possess of it is a small portion of soul/spirit.

What I think is that, if we live according to god's will, our souls/spirits prove themselves worthy of returning home, to our point of origin.

Anything else seems like running in circles, trying to find a different answer than the first, wasting time.

As for free will; we can all choose how we speak, what to eat, where to live, who to talk to, what to wear, etc. Eating junk food will result in an unfit, unproductive body, therefore limiting what you can do with your life. Eating healthily will give you a strong, useful body. Every choice one makes is an act of free will. Each act will then shape your future.

 

[Jordan~]

@Artsu Tharaz: There are things in that representation (if by that you mean our perception of reality) that violate the laws of physics - apparently faster than light phenomena. They're possible because they involve no information, and we're able to say quite confidently, operating from certain axiomata at least, that the things of which they're perceptions cannot move faster than light. In the same way we're able to say quite confidently that not only is our perception of reality deterministic, but that reality itself is deterministic; which is to say nothing of whether or not something intelligent might come to have an idea of free will which will determine that it behaves as if it had free will.

@OverCaes: I wouldn't want to be covered in undetectable spiders, I'm afraid of them. It matters to me that I'm not covered in undetectable spiders. It doesn't matter as much to me if there's a ghost in my skull, especially if I can't perceive it or any connection it might have to me. I wish it well, I hope my skull is comfortable.

We can be run by electrical impulses, but they're mostly not random - quantum mechanics don't have much influence at that scale. There's nothing shameful about being run by electrical impulses. It's quite amazing, really. We are regular beasts of the earth - I don't really see anything about us that's exceptional, other than in magnitude - and I think it would make more sense to say that machines are, too, rather than the other way around, albeit very simplistic, manmade beasts. Beasts are nice, though. There's lions and wolves and whales and owls and stuff. That's pretty good company to keep. Plus, where is this spirit and why can't we find any trace of it?

And didn't this god create animals, too? So won't they have bits of the first spirit in them? What about rocks? What about air? Why just us? Why's this god so keen on us? Why didn't it just make everything like us if we're so great? Why won't it answer for itself?

What's so great about our point of origin? I'm happy enough here. This is my home. I like it. It's not perfect, but we can work on that. I'd rather just make paradise right here than hedge my bets and die, especially if to get to that point of origin, whatever it is, I need to do all the stuff it says in the Bible. That sounds really tedious and awful. No loving other men? Well, why not? I have loved other men, I'm not going to pretend that it wasn't the best thing ever because some old book says it wasn't, or even because a giant ghost says it wasn't. Let him do his worst, see if I care.

That's quite a shallow appraisal of will, though, isn't it? Try asking yourself why people eat junk food, and then for every single answer you give ask yourself why again, and you might achieve a deeper understanding.

 

[OverCaes]

I have absolutely nothing against anyone in this world. You love who you love. The only one argument I would have that might oppose homosexuality is that that particular couple might no experience what it is to give birth to and raise a child. Without family, there would be no love, and without love, there would be nothing.

I look at Earth as a big hotel. Temporary lodging with every possible amenity. Obviously, it's tenants have the free will to do as they please, but the stay is ultimately temporary. We can arrange all of our worldly possessions around our 'rooms' but the day will come when we all have to check out.

 

[Jordan~]

Well, you can just adopt. There's plenty of kids with no parents who need some, especially financially-better-off-on-average parents. If you disparage that sort of familial love in comparison to the love a natural parent has for their child, you risk being (quite rightly) punched in the face by a foster parent. And there is non-familial love. I think the fact that we have only one word for "love" clouds the issue slightly. Take the Greek words - there's agape, unconditional love, which is certainly an aspect of familial love, but also of romantic love. It's very possible to love someone unconditionally romantically. And there's eros, which wasn't necessarily sexual attraction, more a very intense longing, but it was used to refer to sexual attraction as well, consequently. That can be familial or romantic, too, in that you can long very intensely for the comfort of your family or you can long very intensely to be with a lover. Then there's philia, which is like friendly love. Again, can be familial or romantic. And agape, which is just liking something or someone. Not really intense enough to familial or romantic unless you're not very close to your family. On balance I'd say that romantic love is actually better.

I like dogs more than children, anyway. I'll just have dogs and love them unconditionally instead. But more as siblings than as children, there's an uncomfortable imbalance of power in a parent/child relationship.

Like I say, I have no intention of ever checking out. But then, I've always thought it'd be great to live in a suite of rooms in a hotel.

 

[OverCaes]

haha I don't disparage adoption. I am saying that all other sorts of loved could be experienced through other means. But the love of a child to a parent is irreplaceable. I haven't decided yet, personally, if I will settle down and have children, but adoption crosses my mind.

I have no intention of dying today, but I'm sure there are few people who do.

 

[Jordan~]

Yeah. So the love of an adoptive child to an adoptive parent works just as well, surely? And a gay couple can adopt a child, so that one argument doesn't really work. Like I say, I think romantic love is better, anyway. And dogs are just the best. Yesterday afternoon I was trying to get to sleep and you know what kept me up for three hours? Children. There were also dogs, but not a peep out of them! Yet people muzzle dogs and not children. I'm sure if I had a kid I'd love it, but I don't want the parental lifestyle or particularly the responsibility of crafting a person's mind. I don't really think I have the authority to cause a person to exist, never mind to subsequently shape their psyche. I have one concrete ambition in life, and that's to have three dogs. Man, I love dogs. I haven't slept in a long time...

I mean ever. I have no intention of dying ever. I'll outlive this universe, save it, or die trying, just watch me.

 

[OverCaes]

I will watch you. And you will watch me. I only hope we are looking at one another and not through a mirror.

 

[Madoness]

As far as I have concluded.. I am not a a free will kind of person at all... and possibly not at all determinist.... I'm not really sure where has it left me?

 

[Jordan~]

Compatibilist?

 

[eifebiani]

the way I look at it determinism does not mean free will is impossible only the notion that free will is random! consider this. a person ( let's call him jerry) lives in a world where there is a god/soul/english speaking werewolf or what ever you prefer! Jerry is a man with a soul now I would argue that Jerry have just as little or much free will as us because his decisions are still made by something this something have just changed. it's his personality that rules his decisions past experiences and so on and so forth! now when Jerry is making a choice all those factors is playing in on the choice and because of that if Jerry is placed in the exact same conditions as when he made the choice he will choose the same over and over again! now I would argue that Jerry have free will there is no deterministic law governing his moves! I would also argue that since it's the same thing that influence our choices the processes might be very different but Jerry in a deterministic universe would choose based on the exact same things and so he chooses the same thing as before!

in my opinion both the Jerrys have free will but a limited free will because both of them could never in the given situation have chosen differently but they still had a choice!

now I realise the huge amount of assumptions in this argument but I couldn't find a better way to put my scrambled brain in order for a brief moment to form this argument (:
but I fell confident that at least some of you get where I am going!

 

[M0d3RN]

If you don't know, you are free to wander aimlessly. As soon as you hear something good, you are basically obligated to do good.

Analogy: A child who has never been taught about stealing is hungry, sees an apple with no obvious owner, takes and eats it. Another child, who had been taught about stealing, is hungry, sees an apple, and weighs the pros and cons of taking what is there.

The power to do good or evil lies in the knowledge of the two.

 

[kora]

it often saddens me how easily I can convince myself something stupid with no proof to back it up such as horoscopes is real...I think, on the contrary, it takes rationnal effort not to blindly believe in many things, so atheists are struggling harder than christians to keep their faith hahaha

 

[Philosophyking87]

So, do you think we can really actually choose to believe in something?

Well, people are clearly susceptible to socialization; therefore, many things a person is raised to believe will turn out not to be of their own choosing. But despite this, if a person has not been significantly influenced by external stimuli, we can generally say that their beliefs are of their own personal efforts (although perhaps the very psychological process of thought production and reasoning occurs according to the particular psychological dispositions of each individual).

So yes, we probably do choose what we believe in a general sense, so long as we formed our own opinions based on our own thinking. But beyond that, it's clearly possible that our very psychological makeup influences, if not determines to some extent, how we tend to develop personal judgments on many matters.

Imo, Descartes said it best:

But this is rather a testimony to the fact that the power of judging well and distinguishing what is true from what is false, which is really what we call good sense or reason, is naturally equal in all men, and thus the diversity of our opinions does not arise because some people are more reasonable than others, but only because we conduct our thoughts by different routes and do not consider the same things.

In reality, it's likely that some people truly are more logical, objective, and reasonable than others. However, I do think Descartes had a point in noticing that despite the fact that we all reason differently, it's perhaps usually the case that even if we didn't reason differently, we still tend to consider different information when we reason, judging them according to a different hierarchy of values, priorities, and other such human preferences. This perhaps accounts for the diversity of opinion and belief which exists in the world, along with differences in logical ability.

I dont mean to imply universal determinism, science can refute that, and it doesnt stand metaphisically either. But the environment infuence is dominant in this. Lets supose for a moment that christian religion is "the true one", what is the chance of someone who was born in India in a hinduistic family to believe in god? So he is condemned to go to hell and suffer for all eternity because of where he was born? Is that fair? The indu is suppose to believe without proof as well, so he does (exactly as christians do), then why is he to blame?

Good point. Socialization, as I said, does tend to account for much of the diversity of belief out in the world — especially religious belief. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that if one person were taught a religion which was false, while another person were taught a religious which was true (even if the very idea of true/false religious beliefs is absolute bullshit), that the former should suffer, while the latter should be rewarded for proper faith. The simple fact of the matter is that if much of our beliefs are not of our own making, we should not believe those who make the incredibly bogus claim that we should follow the right faith and refrain from the wrong one -- or that we need to be saved by accepting one particular religion over another.

Moreover, as I just said, people are psychologically diverse, such that we tend to interpret information and process thought in different ways. Does it make sense to say that some people were a) just unfortunate enough to integrate a false religion based on their location of birth, and b) regrettably born with psychological inclinations which rendered their religious preferences (or lack thereof) to be different than those of others (especially those who claim to hold the "correct faith")?

In the end, it does not make sense. No person should ever believe the old and incredibly ridiculous lie that their religious beliefs (or any beliefs for that matter) are possibly suspect, such that they may suffer for simply coming to a different conclusion (by their own efforts or not) than others. The simple fact is that we are not likely entirely in control of our beliefs, and this essentially means that no person should ever feel guilty for holding to a belief system another group of people deem "worthy of eternal punishment." It's not only unfounded illogical bullshit, but it's also incredibly ridiculous.

The only belief systems we perhaps may feel guilty for are those which are not rational in nature and perhaps may lead to some negative consequences for us in life (as Richard Dawkins often attempts to demonstrate). Anything else is absolutely acceptable; people are different.

I end with an appropriate quote:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei

 

[worm]

Here is my opinion, in discussion form:

Person 1: What is free will?
Person 2: The ability to control one's actions free of an influencing third party.
Person 1: So, if one acts based on past experiences, and because experience is base on the outside, or third party, would this be the opposite of free will?
Person 2: No because the experiences were in memory, and one would choose to use these experiences. This choice is not based on any third party, but is a default choice one has already determined to use.
Person 1: Ah, but this is assuming that choice exists, and there is no predeterminable "fate".
Person 2: If this "fate" existed, then would it be naturally created, or created by a sentinent being? If the former, then bad, illogical choices would not exist. Nature is very efficient and logical, and would not cause an illocigal action. If the latter, then we must assume that this being has great knowledge to create such a thing. Such knowledge would be obtained in experiments. Experiments take time. With time, one gains experience. With experience, one is wise. If one is wise, then one is logical. A logical being would not cause illogical decisions to be made. Therefore, this "fate" cannot exist, or all would be logical.
Person 1: What is this "fate" was damaged?
Person 2: This "fate" is part of a system. The system is made of the minds of millions of people, reality, physics, and of course, this "fate". Such a system, as described before, would be logical and effecient, meaning as few parts as possible. With less parts, each is more important. If one was damaged, the system would fail, or severly malfunction.
Person 1: It is past midnight. I'm going to sleep now. Goodbye.
Person 2: Goodbye.

THE END

 

[Cyberpunk]

I'm a not totally convinced determinist. But I think that it makes sense to look at the world and its phenomena from a deterministic point of view. Personal responsibility and individualism takes up too much of discussions related to poverty, homelessness and drug addiction... Just to name a few topics where the whole debate disintegrates because of the notion that somebody could've done otherwise.

And even when accounting for free-will in discussions like that, the fact remains that there is a statistical tendency for some people to "choose" to put a spike in their vein more than others.

 

[RaBind]

Your thoughts are determined by you biology, and how/what you were taught to think.

If you don't even have the free will to think differently or different thoughts, how can you have free will in your behavior?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I see both free will and determinism to operate and affect each other. The analogy I use is a river. At it's source it is small, fast and easily diverted to travel in various directions. As the river flows and tributaries feed into it, it becomes wider and harder to divert until it empties into the sea. The decisions I make take me in one direction which affects future choices and limits my choices. That doesn't mean I can't still choose but my past choices have placed me in a direction and it's much harder to divert. As an example, I get into drug use which sets me on a path that makes it difficult to go back. That doesn't mean I can't but the magnitude of a crisis event has to be equal to how embedded I am in that direction. Not the best explanation but I gave it a shot.

 

[volitionfree]

I believe that ultimately "free individual will" is an illusion and pure determinism is a primitive counter to it. Truth is stuff just happens and your "will" is no different from the "will" of the world outside of you.

Any further arguments I reject on the grounds that I'm not clever enough to follow them xD

 

[Cognisant]

How is this still going?

Free will contradicts causality and without causality choice is irrelevant therefore the very condition required for free will negates the possibility of it existing.

 

[GodOfOrder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwbnGqOrAEM

 

[Cognisant]

Can you paraphrase that please?

That video is over an hour long!

 

[GodOfOrder]

My apologies. First I should say that, I am not directly trying to contribute to this discussion. The video is just an interesting concept, for those that wish to watch it. I don't know that I agree wholly with Dennett, and I haven't seen seen this in a while, but here's my best synopsis. Just know that I'm not actually arguing his position, merely attempting to explain it.

He attempts to redefine "free will" within the confines of a deterministic universe. The new name he gives to free will is "moral competency", which essentially boils down to the question "Could you have done something?" This is not to say that you did, or that you even thought about it.

At one point he brings up an analogy of two computer chess programs playing each other in a game. They are determined in the sense that all programs are. As the game progresses, Program A runs a few more simulations that Program B. As a result, A always wins. Game after game, the two play each other. B almost wins every time, but due to the fact that it runs less simulations before moving, neglects to move a particular piece in a particular way. If B did do this, B could have won. There is nothing in the rules of chess that prevent B from making the move, and so we say that B could have made the move, therefore B has free will even though its nature prevents it from taking that final step.

So "moral competency" is just the ability to make decisions within your given situation. This ability can still be cultivated within the confines of a deterministic universe, as they only determine what is and isn't possible.

I do however admit, that this could be a misremembering, and thus a gross mischaracterization. My mind is hazy at present moment.

 

[Cognisant]

Sounds like an idiot.

Not only does his miss the reason why free will is important in the first place he then confuses the matter by discussing a field he's clearly not an expert in and worst of all misses the entire point of determinism.

There weren't enough cycles for the program to calculate the correct course of action, end of story, that's determinism, no shoulda coulda woulda, just no, 1+1=2, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, causality does not give a fuck what anyone thinks.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Sounds like an idiot.

Not only does his miss the reason why free will is important in the first place he then confuses the matter by discussing a field he's clearly not an expert in and worst of all misses the entire point of determinism.

There weren't enough cycles for the program to calculate the correct course of action, end of story, that's determinism, no shoulda coulda woulda, just no, 1+1=2, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, causality does not give a fuck what anyone thinks.

As I said, my description of him could be flawed, and his description is a bit more sophisticated than that. Perhaps I am the idiot

 

[Cognisant]

Only if you try to justify free will.

 

[7even]

The very fact that we desire nullifies the idea that we are 'free'.

Being free is being unbounded. We are subject to our the body's needs and the limits imposed by our environments, and our inheritance.

When you are sat there taking a shit, how free are you really?
When you find yourself eating?
The same principle applies when you find yourself thinking, socializing, exercising etc.

Does a blind man desire to see if he was not self-aware of his inability?

"Free Will" would firstly, necessitate being aware of ALL possibility (absolute possibility), and secondly, require the ability to fulfill each and every possibility (absolute potential). People have different scopes of imagination and different abilities, even the greatest mind cannot conceive of every possibility, rendering the first point null. In relation to the second point, even if such an extraordinary mind existed, aware of all possibility, is it probable for the subject to fulfill each and every one of these possibilities?

The concept of "free will" is nonsensical, it is akin to the belief in God. If such an entity or concept existed, life as we know it would not exist. The eradication of time itself. This is nihilism.

 

[k9b4]

I am very sorry, but I did not read any of this thread. I just read the title and am going to post my ideas about 'free will'.

Humans have 'free will' in the sense that they are conscious. They can plan and reason and make choices based on their desires.

Humans do not have 'free will' in the sense that every decision they make is caused by electrical and chemical signals in their heads. Every single human decision which has been made in the past and will be made in the future was determined when the universe and its physical laws came into existence (by whichever method you prefer to believe).

 

[Cherry Cola]

He attempts to redefine "free will" within the confines of a deterministic universe. The new name he gives to free will is "moral competency", which essentially boils down to the question "Could you have done something?" This is not to say that you did, or that you even thought about it.

An interesting concept. But why call it free will when he has redefined it? Seems like he's just hijacking the concept of free will in order to use it to further his own concept. I mean free will is a hotly debated topic (for some reason) so if he pushes his own concept into that particular philosophical sphere of discourse it's easier for him to bring attention to it. But that comes at the cost of diluting and increasing the ambiguity of the concept of free will. So it's kind of a dick move imo.

Plus all proponents of free will rely on redefing free will so that it means something else. So it's something we've already seen in many forms albeit not his specifically.

I wonder if a lot of philosophers don't do this. Ie change a well known concept so that it can contain their own concepts and theories. That way their product has a brand to back it up, so to speak.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Only if you try to justify free will.

He said he was trying to redefine free will in order for it to make sense within a deterministic universe, so he's not an idiot in the sense that you think. He gets that free will doesn't make sense the way it's commonly defined.

Still I think he's a bit of an idiot for attempting to redefine free will, there's no need to do so. Just come up with a new concept instead of modifying an old one in a way that makes no sense.

 

[vladmirus]

My very personal opinion about the subject is that one can assume that the whole universe is an infinite loop of a universal code (kind of like minecraft) and even though this infinite space can be continually explored, the basic rules of this universe still apply. (we obviously don't know all the rules (yet.) The point is that even though living organisms in this system adhere to these rules, they have the ability to use any means to achieve their intention within these set rules.
Obviously, in real life we need to consider the human psyche, and the problems this complication brings to the table. The human (and most animals) are quite possibly bound by instinct and adaption to the environment in order to survive (the idea of survival in humans have changed in recent times.) This primary instinct is however not
the only rule that bind us, we have the ability to create and adapt anything within the set rules (as the stone age humans did by creating weapons, they were never told to do so, they recognised a need, an opportunity and a way to achieve it.)

The question here is really whether we find ourselves in a universe limited to a set of complex, unbreakable rules, OR If the universe is only a complex platform used to set a huge habitat (with fundamental rules) for its occupants to roam freely in, leaving their actions to free will.

I am a believer that the latter is true, because within the rules used to keep our universe together, we thrive in expressing ourselves, creation, discovery and have the ability to take information and make our own decision accordingly.

 

[doncarlzone]

Idiotic would be to define free will in such a way that is impossible to imagine and yet have it implicate that humans have no moral responsibility. That's basically the state of the free will debate outside the Philosophy community.

If one thinks that Determinism implicates the absence of free will, then is that just because of Determinism? Would Indeterminism give us free will? Does randomness really equal free will? If not, what would? Why would anyone, or anything (incl. "Souls"), not make the same decision under the exact same conditions if one were to rewind the tape? If a being did make a different decision wouldn't that just indicate randomness? How could it possibly indicate anything else? By the above definition and reasoning it leads to absurdity, which is why it's important to discuss its presumed implications, and thus it's perfectly reasonable for Daniel Dennett to focus on moral responsibility.

I'm not myself entirely convinced by all of Dennett's arguments but he sure is not an idiot.

 

[Yellow]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone actually believes in extreme Determinism or extreme Indeterminism. So it makes sense that people would try to work free will, morality in this case, into the concept of Determinism, if that is their leaning. I tend toward Free Will, but I understand that it has its limits.