 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do we have free will? |
| No, our fates are impersonally controlled |
|
23% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, our fates are controlled by a personal force |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, we are free to choose |
|
58% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3548
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I've voted for the "No, and personal forces" because it is the closest approximation to declaring that there is no empirical free will, ( only illusion of it) , at the same time as believing in god.
I think it is very interesting that Christianity does not necessarily require belief in free will. I can see that about the New Testament stories, that actually noone has any choice. They are all just acting their pre-ordained roles, just like in Greek Myth.
Whenever I really get it/grasp the knowledge, hold onto it for a moment, that we are pieces/parts of a huge process developing, with no independent free will at all, ( only the illusion of it) I feel very definitely amazed by the universe; it is in my opinion an unavoidably spiritual perspective.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Well, I've written enough for those readers here who wish to think open-mindedly about free will. |
Right.... ok.
| Quote: |
You yourself, AG, are obviously biased against me and hard-headed to the clear logic
I've laid out, so I needn't spend any more time in this thread. I've laid out my arguments,
and that's all I needed to do. The poll results show what most people have so far decided. |
Um..... yeah. I am obviously so intellectually dishonest and of course, this is all based upon my personal hatred of you, which, as we all know, knows no bounds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
tharn
Toucan
Joined: Apr 22, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 255
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: |
Hmm... either you are inconsistent, or you have not focused much on defining free will. In discussions on free will there is libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. The latter is what most soft determinists believe in, and most determinists are soft determinists. |
I suppose I could be categorized under compatibilists. Or rather, my suspicions about free will might best be placed under compatibilism. My hope is that the two theories can be reconciled, since I haven't been able to convince myself that either theory is false; so any attempt at certainty leads me to being inconsistant. It is an uncomfortable position, but both theories seem to hold some truth.
I've studied my fair share of Science. And as a scientist, the argument that thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of equasions that were set in motion long before our birth, seems evidently true. I do not see any new causes that cannot be explained in terms of the effects of pre-existing causes. It seems the act of cause and effect preclude free choice.
Yet my intuition tells me that when I make a choice between left and right, that choice is to some extent my own making. It is apparent to me that I am an agent of my own actions. Even asking these questions convinces me some element of choice must be at work. It may be that this "free will" is an illusion created by the brain's wiring. But who is the illusion acting upon? If it is an illusion, even a determinist must agree that it is an impressive one! I would also like to believe in free will, because if "I" am predetermined to act in such a way, who should take responsiblity for my own actions, and who do I mean when I say "I"? But wanting something to be, is not proof that it actually is.
So you'll see I am eager for a more convenient definition, or a compromise between the two theories. And if there is an argument that solves the matter conclusively, I'd love to see it. So for now, please just list me as an interested reader with far more questions than answers.
_________________
Sainte atha ma u Hrair, kan zyhlante hray u vahra ma hyaones.
My heart has joined the Thousand, for my friend stopped running today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Honorary Vertebrate
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | Well, I've written enough for those readers here who wish to think open-mindedly about free will.
You yourself, AG, are obviously biased against me and hard-headed to the clear logic
I've laid out, so I needn't spend any more time in this thread. I've laid out my arguments,
and that's all I needed to do. The poll results show what most people have so far decided. |
Ragtime, while we desperately need someone to argue the pro free will stance, your arguments are hand-wavy at best.
At worst...
_________________
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country."
-Milton Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 3250
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have free will, but that also must be balanced with responsibility. There are consequences to making bad decisions....... However, most peoples' "freedom" is a myth, ideologically and intellectually. Because their opinions are marketed to them (propaganda), usually in a package deal with other opinions, which also goes against the notion of free will. They pay taxes on everything they think they own, where do those taxes go? Who collects them?
So really, to be free is to seek out the facts, to be free from the constraints of ideology and conformity and to look for plain truth.... Not to cling to anything, or anyone, but to be able to analyze everything. There is only one ultimate external reality.
Most people can't do that though, it's few who can apparently.... Because to be free one truely must be free from themselves, from their own ego. Ego can make people easier to manipulate into making bad decisions and falling into mindless group think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 3250
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But there is a good side to humanity too, that part of humanity which gives people compassion, secular universal ideas of right and wrong, for instance murder is universally understood to be wrong, rape is understood to be wrong.... Most people for example, would wish for world peace, or an end to hunger, these are pretty much universal aspirations of mankind.
So I don't think humankind was made to be robotic either...... Damn this is getting difficult to explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 6142
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tharn wrote: |
I suppose I could be categorized under compatibilists. Or rather, my suspicions about free will might best be placed under compatibilism. My hope is that the two theories can be reconciled, since I haven't been able to convince myself that either theory is false; so any attempt at certainty leads me to being inconsistant. It is an uncomfortable position, but both theories seem to hold some truth.
I've studied my fair share of Science. And as a scientist, the argument that thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of equasions that were set in motion long before our birth, seems evidently true. I do not see any new causes that cannot be explained in terms of the effects of pre-existing causes. It seems the act of cause and effect preclude free choice. |
Well, right, the issue is then defining free will as not having a relationship with causality.
| Quote: |
Yet my intuition tells me that when I make a choice between left and right, that choice is to some extent my own making. It is apparent to me that I am an agent of my own actions. Even asking these questions convinces me some element of choice must be at work. It may be that this "free will" is an illusion created by the brain's wiring. But who is the illusion acting upon? If it is an illusion, even a determinist must agree that it is an impressive one! I would also like to believe in free will, because if "I" am predetermined to act in such a way, who should take responsiblity for my own actions, and who do I mean when I say "I"? But wanting something to be, is not proof that it actually is.
So you'll see I am eager for a more convenient definition, or a compromise between the two theories. And if there is an argument that solves the matter conclusively, I'd love to see it. So for now, please just list me as an interested reader with far more questions than answers. |
Well, the issue with a compatibilist is whether or not you are forced by a person to make a decision. I don't think that any determinist would deny that you are effectively an agent in your own fate, this could be shown with you having a set of constants pre-loaded when making decisions that affect the equations in a manner such that the choice is effectively yours. Now, if you act negatively, that choice is a result of your nature, and if you act positively that choice is also a result of your nature. The issue is that many take determinism to reduce away the nature of an individual as an agent because they try to refer to these far-off causes instead of looking at the efficient cause which is the self. You are yourself, an acting agent with a psychology and all sorts of other things. I feel like I am not explaining the position *that* well, but basically compatibilism places choices in a deterministic framework by saying that we make choices based upon who we are, not upon some mysterious acausal element. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 1512
Location: North West United States
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don’t think behavioral determinism makes personal responsibility or justice irrelevant. All it does is force us to see these principles as functional social constructs rather than disembodied transcendental truths. Unfortunately people are afraid to do this. There is some good discussion of this in the book “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3548
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | I don’t think behavioral determinism makes personal responsibility or justice irrelevant. All it does is force us to see these principles as functional social constructs rather than disembodied transcendental truths. Unfortunately people are afraid to do this. |
Haven't read Pinker, but agree totally re: responsibility etc. What I don't understand is why people are afraid to see them as social constructs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 2148
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder what all this talk about responsibility is all about. If a person functions badly in society something obviously must be fixed, however the guilty individual feels. If a machine part functions badly in a machine nobody demands the part has to feel responsible or guilty. You just fix the part or take it out of the machine and replace it. Society is a functioning machine and should be treated rationally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 3548
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sand wrote: | | If a machine part functions badly in a machine nobody demands the part has to feel responsible or guilty. You just fix the part or take it out of the machine and replace it. |
Quite. The whole issue of punishment is mysterious, to me anyway, ( perhaps it's an AS thing).
Justice is so clearly a socially constructed thing varying from place to place and time to time, what could free will have to do with it even if it existed? Ah, but just thought! That is why free will is "needed" for "justice"; to disguise/camouflage the "time and place dependent nature" of the process called justice, to make it seem universal/timeless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
No.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
phil777
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 21, 2008
Age: 22
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I do think it's more complex than that since you're dealing with humans in society, not machines (or so i'd like to think sometimes). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sand
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 2148
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No doubt it is complex which is an inherent part of the problem. How do you fix a murderer or a thief? Is pure punishment a sufficient remedy? It probably does work for a percentage of people but the much larger percentage of convicted people who are released and quickly return to prison should indicate some basic thought is required to examine why there is such a huge and expensive prison population in the USA. I doubt it matters whether a person feels responsible for a violation of accepted behavior if that responsibility does not result in a change of behavior which permits better functioning in society. Undoubtedly the machine comparison is simplistic but it boils the problem down to basics and if the basics are fulfilled the problem may be solvable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
