 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What is your position on the issue of free will? |
| Hard Determinist |
|
12% |
[ 1 ] |
| Compatibilist |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Metaphysical Libertarian |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Hard Indeterminist |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Who cares? |
|
87% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Amen to that!
I continue to take responsibility for my actions thanks, and accept the accolades for what I achieve! After all, it's my fault
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
I probably would have recommended sticking around for more than 10 minutes, but even so I would have thought you'd seen enough to know that that's not really his argument (i.e. "we can't explain it therefore it doesn't exist"). Harris actually gives some excellent explanations as to why we think we have free will and how the process of thought and decision-making works (see his 'choosing a film' analogy which you may or may not have reached). You complain that it's 'pop science', but what did you want me to link to, some verbose academic dissertation on the topic? If anything, I applaud Harris for posing this debate in simple, accessible terms that anyone can understand and consider.
On your second paragraph, Harris makes a great point about this idea of personality change later on in his talk. As he says, not having free will has nothing to do with whether or not you can or will radically change your personality; in fact, as he asserts (and I paraphrase) "you are not the same person you were 5 minutes ago, let alone 10 years ago". What he means by this, I think, is that we are in a state of constant flux as we gain good and bad experiences, further our understanding of the world, develop bad habits, succumb to the ageing process and so on.
Anyway, it's true that we both have biases on this topic. Belief in free will is something you obviously hold dearly, and belief in determinism has been a central tenet of my understanding of the world since I was a teenager. I don't think that should stop either of us from seeking out alternative views; so please, if you can find an accessible, compelling argument for free will on youtube (or in print form) that you think might challenge my views, post it here and I'll give it a look. Likewise, if the topic interests you at all, give Harris a bit more of a chance his talk only goes for about 45 minutes in total and gets quite engaging.
Regardless, feel free to throw anything at me in the meantime. I'm always happy to confront opposing viewpoints; it's one of the joys of philosophy!  |
Appreciate the point that you deliberately chose someone who talked through the concept in simple terms, I would have lasted less than 30 seconds with some dry academic rabitting on.
I suspect part of the argument on this topic is what people define as free will and the subtly different ways it's interpreted.
eg, I accept that when I make a decision it's made by accessing data from a large number of references. My experiences, acquired knowledge, personality, mood at the time etc.
Now there's an argument that making that decision is actually like a massively complex computer program sifting through all the variables in order to answer the question, and that in that case the outcome is actually pre determined as a product of all the inputs.
I get that, and I get that is an argument against the existence of free will.
However, to me the person making that decision, I feel as though I am in charge. Choosing what to do, balancing risk v reward etc, swinging emotion into the mix dependant on mood, and the ability to "over ride" the first answer that spits out rather than just go with it is all a conscious process.
Now on a scientific level you can argue that is an illusion and I have no "real" choice, which may be scientifically correct but it misses the nuances that I AM able to make those decisions consciously and can therefore choose to do wrong things. I can choose to steal, lie or kill and arguing that I actually had no choice in that decision is a cop out.
If that is the case then we should dispense with rehab in gaol's and either stop locking people up because we accept they will do what they're pre determined to do, or just execute everyone who breaks the law.
Science can argue free will is an illusion, it could use the exact or similar argument that Pain is an illusion. But I can feel it so it's real to me.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | If that is the case then we should dispense with rehab in gaol's and either stop locking people up because we accept they will do what they're pre determined to do, or just execute everyone who breaks the law. |
Again, I think this is a subtle but crucial misunderstanding of the argument. Obviously, we can mend a broken bookcase or fix a computer or train a dog to sit, but nobody's arguing that the bookcase or computer or dog have free will. Why, then, would lack of free will be an impediment to reforming criminals or, for that matter, reforming ourselves? It's more or less the same problem: machine/organism/inanimate-object is broken, so lets fix it. And, obviously, we know that criminals can be reformed, so the only question is whether free will is essential to that process.
Of course, we eventually have to get back on to the free will debate because reforming a criminal much like training a dog is to some extent a co-operative process. The criminal probably has to make decisions along the way (e.g. to try to act more kindly towards others).
But where does the desire to make such a decision come from? What makes one criminal want to undergo the reform process while another doesn't? It seems clear to me that we don't choose our desires for ourselves; we either have them or we don't. If you're not in control of your desires, how can you be accountable for your actions? Keep in mind here that the urge to 'do the right thing' or the urge to 'not get caught' is no less a desire than the urge to steal; it's just a matter of which desire or combination of desires is stronger for you in a given moment. You may think that you can 'override' your desires, but with what? More desires? Simply being contrary for its own sake? That's just another desire, too.
I think your computer analogy is very apt, and it's how I view things too. At any given moment, your mind is sifting through all the inputs and trying to work out "What's best for Stui in this particular moment"? Say, you quit smoking a while ago and somebody offers you a cigarette. Objectively, it's pretty clear what is the best option for you to take in that situation, but within your brain there's a battle between the strong urge to just have a single smoke and the concern that this might get you hooked again and affect your long-term health. The decision you take in the end will simply be whatever you want more in that given moment; which desire overrides the other. And, clearly, you neither choose which desires you have nor the extent to which you feel them.
Once you realise that something like this has been the case for every decision you've ever made and, thus, every decision everybody's ever made how can you judge or blame someone else (or yourself) for making bad decisions? Their brain was performing exactly the same process as yours, mine and everybody else's: "What's best for me in this situation?". Some just have better/worse impulse control, a superior/inferior ability to logically weigh up options or perhaps just aren't very smart to begin with. It's not really their fault, is it?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | If that is the case then we should dispense with rehab in gaol's and either stop locking people up because we accept they will do what they're pre determined to do, or just execute everyone who breaks the law. |
Again, I think this is a subtle but crucial misunderstanding of the argument. Obviously, we can mend a broken bookcase or fix a computer or train a dog to sit, but nobody's arguing that the bookcase or computer or dog have free will. Why, then, would lack of free will be an impediment to reforming criminals or, for that matter, reforming ourselves? It's more or less the same problem: machine/organism/inanimate-object is broken, so lets fix it. And, obviously, we know that criminals can be reformed, so the only question is whether free will is essential to that process.
Of course, we eventually have to get back on to the free will debate because reforming a criminal much like training a dog is to some extent a co-operative process. The criminal probably has to make decisions along the way (e.g. to try to act more kindly towards others).
But where does the desire to make such a decision come from? What makes one criminal want to undergo the reform process while another doesn't? It seems clear to me that we don't choose our desires for ourselves; so, if you're not in control of your desires, how can you be accountable for your actions? Keep in mind here that the urge to 'do the right thing' or the urge to 'not get caught' is no less a desire than the urge to steal; it's just a matter of which desire or combination of desires is stronger for you in a given moment. You may think that you can 'override' your desires, but with what? More desires? Simply being contrary for its own sake? That's just another desire, too.
I think your computer analogy is very apt, and it's how I view things too. At any given moment, your mind is sifting through all the inputs and trying to work out "What's best for Stui in this particular moment"? Say, you quit smoking a while ago and somebody offers you a cigarette. Objectively, it's pretty clear what is the best option for you to take in that situation, but within your brain there's a battle between the strong urge to just have a single smoke and the concern that this might get you hooked again and affect your long-term health. The decision you take in the end will simply be whatever you want more in that given moment; which desire overrides the other. And, clearly, you neither choose which desires you have nor the extent to which you feel them.
Once you realise that something like this has been the case for every decision you've ever made and, thus, every decision everybody's ever made how can you judge or blame someone else (or yourself) for making bad decisions? Their brain was performing exactly the same process as yours, mine and everybody else's: "What's best for me in this situation?". Some just have better/worse impulse control, a superior/inferior ability to logically weigh up options or perhaps just aren't very smart to begin with. Some are highly impulsive, some are overly cautious. It's not really their fault, is it? |
That's the part for me where the argument completely breaks down, when it gets taken to that extension where people aren't accountable for their actions.
A pretty girl walks down the street. You may think she's absolutely hot and get an instant boner for her. But you don't run over, knock her to the ground and rape her. Why not?
On the other hand, we have examples of where men have done exactly that and then blame the women because if they weren't out alone or dressed that way, the man wouldn't have had impulses. By your logic, it's not that mans fault that he attacks and rapes that woman.
For mine it's absolutely that mans fault because he has the choice to not do it.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | A pretty girl walks down the street. You may think she's absolutely hot and get an instant boner for her. But you don't run over, knock her to the ground and rape her. Why not? |
Because I, like most people, have a sufficiently functional level of impulse control that I'm able to stop myself from doing highly socially inappropriate things; likewise, I hope I have a sufficiently developed ability for compassion that I would generally prefer not to do something that I know would hurt someone else. It's also entirely possible that I don't even possess the desire to rape in the first place. It doesn't appeal to me. Last but not least, even if all of the above weren't the case, I'd be scared of getting caught and going to jail. These are all factors that prevent me from committing such acts.
Compare all of this to the rapist in your hypothetical: he has some combination of a) poor impulse control; b) a low ability to feel compassion for others; c) a low level of awareness or fear of potential consequences and d) the desire to rape in that particular instance. Nobody gets to choose such qualities for themselves; they're simply the product of genes and experience the particular brand of 'computer' that you talked about a few posts back. If you or I had that same mixture of antisocial traits, would we have a tendency to rape? Undoubtedly!
| stui magpie wrote: | | On the other hand, we have examples of where men have done exactly that and then blame the women because if they weren't out alone or dressed that way, the man wouldn't have had impulses. By your logic, it's not that mans fault that he attacks and rapes that woman. |
Doing that would just be blame-shifting. If the criminal were being honest (or smart enough to realise what actually happened), he'd realise that the girl's decision to walk alone and dress in a certain way was only a small contributing factor in what ended up happening the primary reason the rape happened was the rapist's own lack of impulse control, lack of compassion, etc. That's important to ascertain not so we can condemn him or call him a bad person, but so we know where the problem lies in order to fix it. The problem is not women who walk alone down the street in certain clothing; the problem is men with low impulse control, etc., etc. That's the problem that needs to be dealt with.
So, no, it's not his fault that he's the way he is, and not his fault that he acted in the way people like that tend to act, but society rightly demands that he still has to face the appropriate legal consequences for his actions.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You've just argued that the guy has choice but chose badly and it's not his fault.
Sorry, either I completely don't get the argument or it's fundamentally flawed.
You can't argue that people can chose but can't.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | A pretty girl walks down the street. You may think she's absolutely hot and get an instant boner for her. But you don't run over, knock her to the ground and rape her. Why not? |
Because I, like most people, have a sufficiently functional level of impulse control that I'm able to stop myself from doing highly socially inappropriate things; likewise, I hope I have a sufficiently developed ability for compassion that I would generally prefer not to do something that I know would hurt someone else. It's also entirely possible that I don't even possess the desire to rape in the first place. It doesn't appeal to me. Last but not least, even if all of the above weren't the case, I'd be scared of getting caught and going to jail. These are all factors that prevent me from committing such acts.
Compare all of this to the rapist in your hypothetical: he has some combination of a) poor impulse control; b) a low ability to feel compassion for others; c) a low level of awareness or fear of potential consequences and d) the desire to rape in that particular instance. Nobody gets to choose such qualities for themselves; they're simply the product of genes and experience the particular brand of 'computer' that you talked about a few posts back. If you or I had that same mixture of antisocial traits, would we have a tendency to rape? Undoubtedly!
| stui magpie wrote: | | On the other hand, we have examples of where men have done exactly that and then blame the women because if they weren't out alone or dressed that way, the man wouldn't have had impulses. By your logic, it's not that mans fault that he attacks and rapes that woman. |
Doing that would just be blame-shifting. If the criminal were being honest (or smart enough to realise what actually happened), he'd realise that the girl's decision to walk alone and dress in a certain way was only a small contributing factor in what ended up happening the primary reason the rape happened was the rapist's own lack of impulse control, lack of compassion, etc. That's important to ascertain not so we can condemn him or call him a bad person, but so we know where the problem lies in order to fix it. The problem is not women who walk alone down the street in certain clothing; the problem is men with low impulse control, etc., etc. That's the problem that needs to be dealt with.
So, no, it's not his fault that he's the way he is, and not his fault that he acted in the way people like that tend to act, but society rightly demands that he still has to face the appropriate legal consequences for his actions. |
im sure there is the odd one or two, sadly, like that, but how many just use that as an excuse? im guessing the majority know its wrong, but chose to do it anyway.
like that chocolate bar.
surely every living soul has to have some level of accountability.
or God help us.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | im guessing the majority know its wrong, but chose to do it anyway.
like that chocolate bar. |
Exactly. Like in my analogy of Stui being offered a cigarette. On some level, like all lapsed smokers, he knows that taking the cigarette is bad for his health and might get him hooked again, but on another level he probably badly wants a smoke. Which one will he choose? The one he wants the most in that given moment, of course (e.g. he wants the cigarette but wants to stay healthy even more). Who gets to decide what they want and how much they want it? You can decide to spend an hour on the treadmill instead of lying in bed eating chocolate, but you didn't decide how much you wanted each of those things. You just had a bit more willpower than the other guy.
| stui magpie wrote: | You've just argued that the guy has choice but chose badly and it's not his fault.
Sorry, either I completely don't get the argument or it's fundamentally flawed.
You can't argue that people can chose but can't. |
OK, essentially my view is this:
Yes, of course we make decisions; we make 'choices', if you like. That's not up for dispute. A computer chess game also makes decisions. The problem here is whether or not the decisions we make are determined by factors out of our control.
You obviously agree with me that our decisions are heavily biased (i.e. we lean towards one decision over another due to our various unchosen personality traits); so, the only question remains whether they're so biased that they're inevitable, or whether we still have the ability to break free of our genes, our personal history, our desire to do things that feel pleasurable, our desire to 'do the right thing', our desire to want to be spontaneous, our religious beliefs and so on and end up with some 'free' choice. Once you take all of those factors out of the equation, what's left? In my view, nothing. All our motivations are out of our control, and as all of our actions are 100% dependent on our motivations, our actions are out of our control too.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ fine. Believe what you want.
Now tell me what this means in practical terms. Exactly how (if at all) does this "knowledge" you have alter our best strategies for interpersonal action, loving relationships, law, justice, government and/or Nick's Collingwood BBS?
_________________
οΏ½Let's eat Grandma.οΏ½ Commas save lives!
Last edited by Tannin on Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
By all means! Here, in no particular order, are some concepts that become unsustainable if you do not believe in free will:
blame
hatred
contempt
guilt
responsibility
accountability
judgementalism
self-blame
self-hatred
pride
arrogance
"I didn't deserve this."
"I did deserve this."
"They deserved this."
"I/they am/are an evil/bad/good person."
I don't, of course, mean that once you stop believing in free will all of these feelings or ideas will necessarily disappear overnight (or at all). What you'll no longer have is a justification for any of them. What you will have to accept, no matter how unpalatable these concepts may seem to many people, is empathy and humility.
As for the realm of criminal justice, Greene and Cohen have already summarised this far better than I could:
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/GreeneCohenPhilTrans-04.pdf
In short, rejecting free will means eradicating retributivist punishment (he/she deserves to be punished; this act was morally wrong) and adopting a fully consequentialist model (this will have the best possible consequences for society). That probably wouldn't be a radical change here, but in places like the US it'd make a substantial difference.
One good thing about empathy is that it can be applied to the international sphere, too. Thus, rather than publicly railing against cold-hearted Iranians and talking about bombing like we're passing a taxation bill, it might strike us that these people want more or less what we want, and that we'd very likely do the same as what they do in the same situation, and that it'd be pretty horrifying if our city were being bombed by a foreign country. We might understand that terrorists aren't 'evil', but merely the products of their situation. We might feel more inclined to act in the interests of everybody rather than just our country or our 'type' of person.
As empathy is inherent in the rejection of free will, I can't help but think that widespread acceptance of determinism would make the world a much better place on every level. But that's just my view. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Pfft! ^ Complete fairy-tale nonsense.
First, there is no reason whatever to believe that the assumption of determinism will get rid of any of those things you list any more than the assumption of immaculate conception leads to morality, honesty, good-will, prayerful sobriety, closure of gambling houses due to lack of demand, chastity, justice, and cessation of venereal diseases. You make a huge claim for a connection, but on little or no evidence.
Secondly, there is no, repeat no justification to think that any of these things you mention have anything at all to do with empathy. None whatsoever. In fact, we have indisputable evidence that the assumption of lack of free will has no restraining effect whatever on the behaviour of oppressing groups.
For example, very few slave owners believed that slaves became slaves of their own free will. Slaves were born into slavery, that was their lot in life. Did the slave-owners of Alabama realise this and race outside bearing keys to unlock the shackles of their hapless black servants? Hell no! Some of them made up weird and complicated excuses for why God saw fit to condemn other men like themselves to slavery, but most simply accepted it and the whip with one hand and another mint julep with the other.
Did Hitler believe that the Jews he marched into the gas ovens chose to be born Jewish? Hell no! He just murdered them anyway.
If we all believed that certain Japanese rednecks were predestined to believe in slaughtering Australian whales for their own profit, would we all stop thinking badly of them and stop sending Sea Sheppard south to uphold the law and protect the innocent? Hell no!
Short summary: I've seen Bruno mount better, more believable arguments than this one of your above. (Not much better I grant you, but there it is.)
_________________
οΏ½Let's eat Grandma.οΏ½ Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I'm not saying that widespread rejection of free will would necessarily usher in a global utopia, but I do maintain that it would have profound effects on the way we treat each other and the way we view other people.
All of the examples you list seem ostensibly compatible with a deterministic world view because they all required a presumption of inferiority of Africans, Jews and whales, respectively. Rejection of free will wouldn't, as you say, have necessarily stopped those activities.
Fortunately, belief in superior races is no longer mainstream, and widespread rejection of the concept of free will is hardly going to resurrect it. Actually, there's very good reason to believe that determinism could take us in the opposite direction. After all, much like belief in evolution and rejection of religion, rejection of free will actually serves to shorten the gap between the human world and the animal world; so much so that any of humankind's claims to belong to a special category become all but untenable. Needless to say, that'd be a significant boost for the animal rights cause.
You've listed a couple of examples in which the world is equally screwed whether belief in determinism or free will is prevalent (although the holocaust is contentious, because it seems that a great deal of Germans actually did believe that the Jews were morally bankrupt and thus inferior). I've listed several instances where the world would be a better place if determinism were widely accepted. Can you describe any examples of how we'd be worse off without belief in free will?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Give me an example. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I've listed several instances where the world would be a better place if determinism were widely accepted. Can you describe any examples of how we'd be worse off without belief in free will? |
No, you have comprehensively failed to do more than state an opinion unsupported by any substantive evidence. I have no need to reply with an alternative (B) because you have not so far looked like setting up an alternative (A) to challenge it.
In any case, I am not so daft as to want to waste time supporting the existence of free will with argument any more than I would waste time support determinism - it is an age-old sterile and pointless argument which has never yet showed the slightest sign that it is either solvable or useful. I'd rather argue about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, which is equally relevant to real life and has nicer imagery associated with it. (For example, have any of the angels so doing - whether by predetermination or by their own free will - forgotten to put their kickers on this eon?)
And finally, be careful what you wish for: the notion of predetermination has been used by some very, very nasty social organisations indeed to justify and perpetuate inequality, injustice, cruelty, and murder in (just as a couple of examples) both Hindu India and Calvinist England. Even if you could prove it, in other words - and you can't - it might just make things a lot worse.
_________________
οΏ½Let's eat Grandma.οΏ½ Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What were the specifics of the application of this philosophy in Hindu India and Calvinist England? Is it at all possible that the problems there lay mostly with religious fundamentalism as opposed to specific belief in predestination? Keeping in mind that the religious view of predestination whilst not entirely incompatible is quite different to the secular deterministic view.
Anyhow, my goal isn't to prove beyond all doubt that the world is deterministic. I doubt you could ever do such a thing. If enough people find the idea at least somewhat compelling, that's ground for social reform right there.
| Tannin wrote: | | No, you have comprehensively failed to do more than state an opinion unsupported by any substantive evidence. I have no need to reply with an alternative (B) because you have not so far looked like setting up an alternative (A) to challenge it. |
Hang on, don't you agree that widespread rejection of free will would have grave consequences for popular notions of blame, guilt, hatred, judgementalism, good & evil, personal responsibility and 'deserts'? How could it not?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
