The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Free will does not exist (Beware)

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Burning ghost » February 3rd, 2019, 1:23 am

To add :

RJG -
Quite the contrary, the actuality of 'free-will' is an irrefutable logical impossibility on many fronts. The 'psychological acceptance' of these logical proofs, is another matter altogether.
Of course ... because you’ve got a limited hyperbolic concept of “free will”. You seem wholly unable to appreciate that by “free will” most people don’t mean completely free to do as we please regardless of natural laws/forces. If I give you five items and tell you to choose two you cannot choose three if you want to abbide by the laws of engagement given, yet you can by free will cheat the proposed system; not natural laws/forces though.

Atomising time is also another road you like to take. It simply doesn’t work and distracts from the core problem you seem to willingly avoid at every single prompt given (subtle in the part of others and forcefully from me).
AKA badgerjelly

Djacob7
Posts: 35
Joined: October 23rd, 2017, 4:26 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Djacob7 » February 3rd, 2019, 2:38 am

Burning ghost wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 1:17 am
RJG -
In either case, if our choices are 'randomly given' to us, or 'deterministically forced' upon us, then it is not 'us' choosing our choices. We can only then blame/praise (hold responsible) 'randomness' or 'determinism'.
Wrong. Plain and simple. Determinism doesn’t necessarily mean lack of choice. It means there are observable laws of nature which allow for a degree of prediction and therefore the choice (be it limited in some cases and non-existent in others) is there.
BG, if you don't deny determinism and still claim free will, then you're a compatibilist.
I haven't seen much discussion about compatibilism.
A compatibilist's humorous claim: "I have no choice but to have free will."

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3416
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by LuckyR » February 3rd, 2019, 3:16 am

Djacob7 wrote:
February 2nd, 2019, 8:34 pm
To those who say we have free will, I'd ask:
If a murderer had a large tumor in their brain that rendered them incapable of controlling their actions was deemed innocent by a judge upon recommendation of several doctors, would that be fair?
If so, then it behooves those free will advocates to come up with a size of tumor that would make a criminal responsible for their actions.
This scenario isn't all that different from lawmakers having to decide up to how many weeks you can have an abortion.
I'd call the ruling fair if the defendant was ruled not guilty (there is no "innocent" ruling) but a danger to society and thus was medically incarcerated.

Size of tumor? Huh? Ok, ummm... how about 3 cm? Where does take the issue?

As to the abortion timing issue, that is typically defined as the time, before which, the pediatricians cannot save a fetus. More of a medical than philosophical question.
"As usual... it depends."

Djacob7
Posts: 35
Joined: October 23rd, 2017, 4:26 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Djacob7 » February 3rd, 2019, 4:33 am

LuckyR wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 3:16 am
Djacob7 wrote:
February 2nd, 2019, 8:34 pm
To those who say we have free will, I'd ask:
If a murderer had a large tumor in their brain that rendered them incapable of controlling their actions was deemed innocent by a judge upon recommendation of several doctors, would that be fair?
If so, then it behooves those free will advocates to come up with a size of tumor that would make a criminal responsible for their actions.
This scenario isn't all that different from lawmakers having to decide up to how many weeks you can have an abortion.
I'd call the ruling fair if the defendant was ruled not guilty (there is no "innocent" ruling) but a danger to society and thus was medically incarcerated.

Size of tumor? Huh? Ok, ummm... how about 3 cm? Where does take the issue?

As to the abortion timing issue, that is typically defined as the time, before which, the pediatricians cannot save a fetus. More of a medical than philosophical question.
You're right - the sick person should be contained.
The size of tumor is to show that it leads to a reductio ad absurdum, meaning even a zero size tumor doesn't grant free will.
Abortion wasn't meant as a medical issue, it was to demo how sometimes we're forced to face the absurd task of decided what's a human.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3416
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by LuckyR » February 3rd, 2019, 4:43 am

Djacob7 wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 4:33 am
LuckyR wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 3:16 am


I'd call the ruling fair if the defendant was ruled not guilty (there is no "innocent" ruling) but a danger to society and thus was medically incarcerated.

Size of tumor? Huh? Ok, ummm... how about 3 cm? Where does take the issue?

As to the abortion timing issue, that is typically defined as the time, before which, the pediatricians cannot save a fetus. More of a medical than philosophical question.
You're right - the sick person should be contained.
The size of tumor is to show that it leads to a reductio ad absurdum, meaning even a zero size tumor doesn't grant free will.
Abortion wasn't meant as a medical issue, it was to demo how sometimes we're forced to face the absurd task of decided what's a human.
I guess I felt that using the legal system as an analogy for the determinism/free will discussion, was a poor stand-in since I have no expectations of either logic nor impartiality in the justice system.
"As usual... it depends."

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2135
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Belindi » February 3rd, 2019, 4:53 am

Moral responsibility coexists with Determinism only relatively. Although there is no absolute Free Will there are some people who have more freedom of choice than others. People who have more freedom of choice tend to be also people who know how to behave rationally when others are losing their tempers or otherwise giving in to passionate impulses.

Djacob7
Posts: 35
Joined: October 23rd, 2017, 4:26 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Djacob7 » February 3rd, 2019, 5:12 am

Belindi wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 4:53 am
Moral responsibility coexists with Determinism only relatively. Although there is no absolute Free Will there are some people who have more freedom of choice than others. People who have more freedom of choice tend to be also people who know how to behave rationally when others are losing their tempers or otherwise giving in to passionate impulses.
Good point about the relativity of free will. Elders have more free will than youngsters. At what age does free will emerge? (SI)
I'm a staunch determinist, so I say those who have more freedom of choice than average are just lucky. Even if they acquired such abilities by going through rigorous spiritual training, they're just lucky to have such a mindset.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2135
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Belindi » February 3rd, 2019, 5:23 am

I'm a staunch determinist,
Me too, djacob7. The moral criterion of morality for Determinists is freedom. For Determinists the moral compass that points to freedom is reason.

There are times when reason is too slow for example making love, or impulsively saving a life. Under normal circumstances of peace,calm, tolerance, law, and order reason (or informed reflection) is what gives the higher degree of freedom.

Djacob7
Posts: 35
Joined: October 23rd, 2017, 4:26 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Djacob7 » February 3rd, 2019, 5:48 am

Belindi wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 5:23 am
I'm a staunch determinist,
Me too, djacob7. The moral criterion of morality for Determinists is freedom. For Determinists the moral compass that points to freedom is reason.

There are times when reason is too slow for example making love, or impulsively saving a life. Under normal circumstances of peace,calm, tolerance, law, and order reason (or informed reflection) is what gives the higher degree of freedom.
I don't see the connection between determinism and freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? Could you please elaborate?
Wouldn't a compatibilist have the same freedom to reason?

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2135
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Belindi » February 3rd, 2019, 6:57 am

Djacob7 wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 5:48 am
Belindi wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 5:23 am


Me too, djacob7. The moral criterion of morality for Determinists is freedom. For Determinists the moral compass that points to freedom is reason.

There are times when reason is too slow for example making love, or impulsively saving a life. Under normal circumstances of peace,calm, tolerance, law, and order reason (or informed reflection) is what gives the higher degree of freedom.
I don't see the connection between determinism and freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? Could you please elaborate?
Wouldn't a compatibilist have the same freedom to reason?
I don't understand compatibilism, so I cannot comment on it.

Determinism is incompatible with absolute freedom as there is no such thing. Freedom is a state that holds true of the world. The world is a relative world of time and place so freedom is relative freedom.

The world is a relative place by which I mean that each event relates to other events. We usually think that the links are causal despite that we know that causality is none other than constant conjunctions of events. However we can be fairly sure that all events are interrelated events of existence itself.
Freedom from what? Freedom to do what?
Freedom from the restrictions caused by ignorance of self and its environment: Determinists seek causes and their effects. Freedom to have more choices from among reasoned and well judged predictions : those are caused by knowledge and considered evaluations. Freedom also from any need to blame others while retaining the freedom to praise.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by RJG » February 3rd, 2019, 8:40 am

RJG wrote:In either case, if our choices are 'randomly given' to us, or 'deterministically forced' upon us, then it is not 'us' choosing our choices. We can only then blame/praise (hold responsible) 'randomness' or 'determinism'.
Burning ghost wrote:Wrong. Plain and simple. Determinism doesn’t necessarily mean lack of choice. It means there are observable laws of nature which allow for a degree of prediction and therefore the choice (be it limited in some cases and non-existent in others) is there.
Belindi wrote:Moral responsibility coexists with Determinism only relatively.
BG, Belindi, (and others), out of curiosity, are mechanical clocks "morally responsible"?

If their movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can they (the clocks) be held "morally responsible" for their actions?

If human movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can we humans be held "morally responsible" for our actions?

What's the difference? If both sets of actions are purely deterministic, then why is one held "morally responsible", and not the other?

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Burning ghost » February 3rd, 2019, 9:17 am

See above ... evasion and refusal to accept that people use different terminology.

RJG -

Do you think your response has substance relating to what I wrote? It doesn’t; just so you know.
AKA badgerjelly

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2135
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Belindi » February 3rd, 2019, 9:43 am

RJG wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 8:40 am
RJG wrote:In either case, if our choices are 'randomly given' to us, or 'deterministically forced' upon us, then it is not 'us' choosing our choices. We can only then blame/praise (hold responsible) 'randomness' or 'determinism'.
Burning ghost wrote:Wrong. Plain and simple. Determinism doesn’t necessarily mean lack of choice. It means there are observable laws of nature which allow for a degree of prediction and therefore the choice (be it limited in some cases and non-existent in others) is there.
Belindi wrote:Moral responsibility coexists with Determinism only relatively.
BG, Belindi, (and others), out of curiosity, are mechanical clocks "morally responsible"?

If their movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can they (the clocks) be held "morally responsible" for their actions?

If human movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can we humans be held "morally responsible" for our actions?

What's the difference? If both sets of actions are purely deterministic, then why is one held "morally responsible", and not the other?
Mechanical intelligence doesn't live in societies unless programmed to do so, which they are not,and that's why clocks cannot be morally responsible.If a mechanical and intelligent thing were to be programmed to have sense of personal responsibility then it would have a sense of personal responsibility.

If the artificial intelligence were programmed to have a sense of personal responsibility its freedom to do morally responsible actions would be limited to its knowledge and/or power to do so. Likewise with humans, our freedom to do morally responsible actions is limited by our knowledge and power to do so. For instance a baby has no morally responsibility as it has no power. A slave has less moral responsibility as a slave is probably not empowered by social status and probably not by knowledge either.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by Burning ghost » February 3rd, 2019, 9:49 am

Djacob7 wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 2:38 am
Burning ghost wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 1:17 am
RJG -



Wrong. Plain and simple. Determinism doesn’t necessarily mean lack of choice. It means there are observable laws of nature which allow for a degree of prediction and therefore the choice (be it limited in some cases and non-existent in others) is there.
BG, if you don't deny determinism and still claim free will, then you're a compatibilist.
I haven't seen much discussion about compatibilism.
A compatibilist's humorous claim: "I have no choice but to have free will."
Nope. I’m not a hard determinist; which doesn’t necessarily mean I am a compatibilist ... I’m not the one making ansolute claims here and saying this or that is “irrefutable”.

Try having a look here for a brief overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Note: People have been judged innocent of murder due to neurological/neurochemical conditions. It is certainly a sticky issue for law!
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1381
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Free will does not exist (Beware)

Post by RJG » February 3rd, 2019, 2:47 pm

RJG wrote:If free-will does not exist, then we have no choice in the actions we take. Our actions therefore are just auto-reactions that are then consciously realized. Although we may be "physically" responsible, we certainly are not "morally" responsible for these actions.

If there is no free-will, then there is no "morality" or "moral responsibility".
Burning ghost wrote:My position is simple enough. I am not saying that we do have free will for sure only that we act as if we do and that to take on the role of someone not living with free will at all (as a dogmatic and unsubstantiated belief) is immoral.

...To take on the belief that there is no morality is a type of nihilism.
RJG wrote:...are mechanical clocks "morally responsible"?

If their movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can they (the clocks) be held "morally responsible" for their actions?
If human movements/actions are purely deterministic, then can we humans be held "morally responsible" for our actions?

What's the difference? If both sets of actions are purely deterministic, then why is one held "morally responsible", and not the other?
Burning ghost wrote:...evasion and refusal to accept that people use different terminology.
That's funny, I see it the other way around. It seems to me that YOU are "evading/refusing" to answer a direct question(s) that could help clarify the confusion. There is no "evasion and refusal" on my part. I just want to understand your absolute adherence of claiming "moral responsibility" with entities that do not possess free-will. It seems to me, that your insistence of "moral responsibility" is somehow connected to your dislike of "nihilism" (...and not to any sound logic!).

Burning ghost wrote:RJG - Do you think your response has substance relating to what I wrote?
Yes, absolutely! My response was an attempt to get to the root of (and understand) what you wrote. In this case (in my response) I was asking a simple question -- Are non free-will entities (such as clocks) "morally responsible" for their actions? ...better yet, if you could just directly answer the 4 simple questions in my response, that would help a bunch with clarity.

Burning ghost wrote:I’m not the one making absolute claims here and saying this or that is “irrefutable”.
Aren't you? Aren't you making the "absolute claim" that moral responsibility exists even if there is no free will? ...but of course, I have no problem with you making this claim, and even calling it "irrefutable" so long as you can back it up with sound logic, ...which of course there is none, yet?, ...I'm still waiting for you to present your logic which shows how clocks and other non-free-will objects can be held morally responsible for their actions.

Again, it seems that your insistence of "moral responsibility" is somehow connected to your dislike of "nihilism". ...is this true?

Belindi wrote:Likewise with humans, our freedom to do morally responsible actions is limited by our knowledge and power to do so. For instance a baby has no morally responsibility as it has no power. A slave has less moral responsibility as a slave is probably not empowered by social status and probably not by knowledge either.
Belindi, here it sounds like you are agreeing with me, that without free-will there can be no moral responsibility. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that if we are slaves, then we do not have the "power" to choose our actions, and therefore have no moral responsibility. -- or, to have moral responsibility, we must first have the "power" to choose our actions, so as to then be held "morally responsible" for them.

In other words, we can't be blamed/praised (held responsible) for those choices that we DIDN'T make! ...agreed?

Post Reply