Free will does not exist (Beware)

[Belindi]

RJG I have not explained properly. Free Will does not exist to the slightest degree. Freedom(which is not Free Will) is possible but always relates to the amount of power that the subject possesses. Knowledge is a form of power.

[Djacob7]

RJG I have not explained properly. Free Will does not exist to the slightest degree. Freedom(which is not Free Will) is possible but always relates to the amount of power that the subject possesses. Knowledge is a form of power.

If free will doesn't exist, then there can be no power to any subject. Determinism means the future has already been "decided".
For that matter, the future of the universe has been determined at the Big Bang. The only half vast argument against this is from the quantum uncertainty folks.

[RJG]

RJG I have not explained properly. Free Will does not exist to the slightest degree. Freedom(which is not Free Will) is possible but always relates to the amount of power that the subject possesses. Knowledge is a form of power.

Belindi, some questions for you...

1. If free-will does not exist, then doesn't this mean that one does not have 'conscious control' over their actions?

2. And if one isn't the conscious causer/controller of their actions, then how can they be held "morally" responsible, or be blamed for those actions that they had no control over? ...isn't that like me blaming you for the cold temperatures here at my house?

3. And if one has no say-so in their actions (i.e. no free-will), then what does "knowledge", or the amount of knowledge, have to do with "moral responsibility"? ...isn't that like me saying - since you are a meteorologist (with lots of weather knowledge), I can therefore rightfully blame you for the cold temperatures here at my house?

If free will doesn't exist, then there can be no power to any subject.

Bingo.

[Burning ghost]

RJG -

Aren't you? Aren't you making the "absolute claim" that moral responsibility exists even if there is no free will?

No? This is your problem. You read what isn’t written. If you look back I happily agreed with this and then repeated this more than once.

Again, you say nothing make false claims about what other people are saying and fail to address anything relevant.

It is blatantly obvious that if there is no “free will” (in the manner your phrasing the term) there is no morality and hence no moral responsibility. What you don’t seem to be significant is the “IF” for reasons only you can address to yourself in your own good time.

[Belindi]

RJG, and Djacob7, there are better sources than I for explaining absolute so-called 'Free Will' .If it existed it would be randomness not freedom or power.

[Burning ghost]

RJG, and Djacob7, there are better sources than I for explaining absolute so-called 'Free Will' .If it existed it would be randomness not freedom or power.

To add, “random” is another peculiar term that people associate with “free will”. The term is more at home in mathematics than the philosophy of mind. Non-determined doesn’t necessarily mean “random” if we’re framing random as something operating without any laws (ie. not “operating” per se; hence the mine field of terminology either misused, misunderstood, badly presented and/or lacking sufficent explication).

As you rightly point out “freedom” is set within a limit. Freedom without limit is no freedom at all (ironically!).

[Karpel Tunnel]

RJG I have not explained properly. Free Will does not exist to the slightest degree. Freedom(which is not Free Will) is possible but always relates to the amount of power that the subject possesses. Knowledge is a form of power.

But it wouldn't a power that one 'has'. Knowledge in one organism would simply indicate the types of patterns of utterly determined behavior that organism might engage in.

[Karpel Tunnel]

So your assumptions about me and my values are not correct.

Karpel, my argument was not about you (or BG) or your values. It was about the 'premise' that you (and he) were seemingly putting forward --> "If truth is ugly (or is against our values), then we should discard it and not believe it as truth."

If we can't accept logical truths as truth (regardless of it's ugliness!), then we are just playing games and fooling ourselves.

I find it somewhat insulting (to the good name of philosophy) that one would even consider the ugliness or the feel-goodness of a truth, in determining it's truth/falseness.

Then it seems to me it might have been better not to engage in the debate about whether it has negative effects. Once that debate is on the table, then you can't dismiss it as not important or a sign of insulting philosophy to argue either side of that debate. It would be better to say that you value truth over feelings regardless so you have no interest in that topic.

And if determinism is the case, it seems to me there are not longer shoulds, just outcomes. The future is already laid out.

Note: I am not saying determinism is nto the case. Nor am I saying we shouldn't try to find out - though I also think believing in determinism pretty much precludes a justified conclusion one has any idea if one is being logical or not.

I am saying that moral evaluations become rather odd affairs - if inevitable, heh - if one believes in determinism. Should? I do what I do. As determined in the Big Bang.

[LuckyR]

RJG, and Djacob7, there are better sources than I for explaining absolute so-called 'Free Will' .If it existed it would be randomness not freedom or power.

To add, “random” is another peculiar term that people associate with “free will”. The term is more at home in mathematics than the philosophy of mind. Non-determined doesn’t necessarily mean “random” if we’re framing random as something operating without any laws (ie. not “operating” per se; hence the mine field of terminology either misused, misunderstood, badly presented and/or lacking sufficent explication).

As you rightly point out “freedom” is set within a limit. Freedom without limit is no freedom at all (ironically!).

I agree that too often on this particular argument I see the lame tactic of defining the opposing side as extreme to bolster one's own side. In many discussions the focus is whether folks have infinite choices (no influences at all, extreme Free Will), or only one choice which of course is no choice at all (predetermination), but most of our practical experience tells us that we have a few choices. Most can wrap their mind around the idea that the addicted or the mentally ill (yet still legally competent), have fewer choices, but even two choices (instead of 5 or 6) is still a choice.

[Djacob7]

To add, “random” is another peculiar term that people associate with “free will”. The term is more at home in mathematics than the philosophy of mind. Non-determined doesn’t necessarily mean “random” if we’re framing random as something operating without any laws (ie. not “operating” per se; hence the mine field of terminology either misused, misunderstood, badly presented and/or lacking sufficent explication).

As you rightly point out “freedom” is set within a limit. Freedom without limit is no freedom at all (ironically!).

I agree that too often on this particular argument I see the lame tactic of defining the opposing side as extreme to bolster one's own side. In many discussions the focus is whether folks have infinite choices (no influences at all, extreme Free Will), or only one choice which of course is no choice at all (predetermination), but most of our practical experience tells us that we have a few choices. Most can wrap their mind around the idea that the addicted or the mentally ill (yet still legally competent), have fewer choices, but even two choices (instead of 5 or 6) is still a choice.

Lucky said "...but most of our practical experience tells us that we have a few choices."

The worst sources you can count on regarding reality is our subjective experiences and our intuitions. Still today there are humans who believe the sun goes around us.
Evolution arranged our subjectivity for the purpose of survival. To survive physically and mentally we must believe that we're powerful enough to do so, otherwise we'd be hiding under the sheets all the time. That's why gorillas thump their chests: "I'm here and you better watch out!"
We think we have choices. We need to think again.

[Burning ghost]

Djacob -

But I have choice but to continue as I do therefore asking me to “think again” is utterly redundant according to you, yet you do so not out of your choice but simply because you don’t exist as an agent ... if that’s what you think then I repeat again that it is an immoral position unless you know with certainty that it is correct ... which you don’t.

If you could prove that we have no “free will” in the broader sense of the term (meaning not to say that we have unlimited choices unbound by nature) then you’ve proven nothing because you didn’t prove anything it was inebitable.

The IF is a big if. One view means you act as if the reality of the situation is inevitable and the other doesn’t. Thus one view if wrong has a causal effect and the other view if wrong changes nothing. One challenges reality face on with awe and lack of understanding in fearful shoes and the other denies this.

Morally it is a no brainer. The actual physical reality of the situation is unknown.

If you choose the black option don’t go assuming everyone else chooses the white option just because you view the world as one or the other. People don’t create a “fantasy” of grey they just understand they are limited beings with limited understandings and that term like “free will” have various uses some of which don’t run contrary to causation or scientifically determined experimentation.

The issue of subjectivity is a very interesting topic. Don’t dismiss your view of the world so readily given that beyond solipsism you’re composed of others views given we able to communicate (albeit in a limited fashion).

[Djacob7]

Djacob -

But I have choice but to continue as I do therefore asking me to “think again” is utterly redundant according to you, yet you do so not out of your choice but simply because you don’t exist as an agent ... if that’s what you think then I repeat again that it is an immoral position unless you know with certainty that it is correct ... which you don’t.

If you could prove that we have no “free will” in the broader sense of the term (meaning not to say that we have unlimited choices unbound by nature) then you’ve proven nothing because you didn’t prove anything it was inebitable.

The IF is a big if. One view means you act as if the reality of the situation is inevitable and the other doesn’t. Thus one view if wrong has a causal effect and the other view if wrong changes nothing. One challenges reality face on with awe and lack of understanding in fearful shoes and the other denies this.

Morally it is a no brainer. The actual physical reality of the situation is unknown.

If you choose the black option don’t go assuming everyone else chooses the white option just because you view the world as one or the other. People don’t create a “fantasy” of grey they just understand they are limited beings with limited understandings and that term like “free will” have various uses some of which don’t run contrary to causation or scientifically determined experimentation.

The issue of subjectivity is a very interesting topic. Don’t dismiss your view of the world so readily given that beyond solipsism you’re composed of others views given we able to communicate (albeit in a limited fashion).

BG, I'm sorry, but I tried hard to understand what you wrote, with no success. It's not your fault - it's mine. If you could put it simpler (as Einstein suggested), I'd appreciate it.
As a note, I don't think morality has a place in this discussion. Morality is a game humans invented. ("Oh the games people play now. Every night and every day now"). Morality comes into play only AFTER we've decided about free will.

[Burning ghost]

I cannot put it in simpler terms. Sorry

I can only suggest you read the link I provided for compatibilism - you’ll find there how morality is very much part of the debate regarding whether or mot to adhere to this or that position.

[LuckyR]

I agree that too often on this particular argument I see the lame tactic of defining the opposing side as extreme to bolster one's own side. In many discussions the focus is whether folks have infinite choices (no influences at all, extreme Free Will), or only one choice which of course is no choice at all (predetermination), but most of our practical experience tells us that we have a few choices. Most can wrap their mind around the idea that the addicted or the mentally ill (yet still legally competent), have fewer choices, but even two choices (instead of 5 or 6) is still a choice.

Lucky said "...but most of our practical experience tells us that we have a few choices."

The worst sources you can count on regarding reality is our subjective experiences and our intuitions. Still today there are humans who believe the sun goes around us.
Evolution arranged our subjectivity for the purpose of survival. To survive physically and mentally we must believe that we're powerful enough to do so, otherwise we'd be hiding under the sheets all the time. That's why gorillas thump their chests: "I'm here and you better watch out!"
We think we have choices. We need to think again.

You are free to be suspicious of our subjective experiences as pertains the subject matter of choice, though since you didn't offer up a more accurate alternative, no serious person can make much of your posting.

[Djacob7]

Pure and simple: All the particles that make up an organic organism are subject to physical laws, and no agent can interfere with their actions.