Page 1 of 8 [ 107 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

thinkinginpictures
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

18 May 2017, 12:11 pm

Why does the fact that we have no free will not imply we should give up on various issues in life of which we attribute so-called "free will"?

What I mean is this:

Suppose free will is an illusion. Then why do we punish criminals for decisions which weren't truly based off their free will (they have none)?

The criminals will be criminals nonetheless, regardless of punishments. Everything in our society which we attribute to free will, becomes meaningless.

So why is it, that despite the fact that scientists has proved we have no free will, we still insist on living our lives as if we have a free will? Why do we not give up on everything?

It shouldn't just apply to law, but everything in life. I don't understand why we continue to live our lives as if we had free will, when science says we don't.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,329
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 May 2017, 12:36 pm

Problems created by black and white thinking cannot be solved using black and white thinking


_________________
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” - X. Li et. al.
I never said half the things I said - Yogi Berra


Yo El
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Netherlands

18 May 2017, 12:55 pm

Depends on your definition of free-will.



Last edited by Yo El on 18 May 2017, 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thinkinginpictures
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

18 May 2017, 12:55 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Problems created by black and white thinking cannot be solved using black and white thinking


I was not asking a political question, it is more philosophical-psychological, rather than political.



thinkinginpictures
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

18 May 2017, 1:00 pm

Yo El wrote:
Depends on your definition of free-will.


How can there be more definitions?

Which definitions exists for free will?

My definition of free will is that I can make a genuine choice not influenced by external factors, unless I deliberately make the choice of considering those (ie. I can choose to draw my choices and conclusions on other facts, but my thinking is not influenced wether my atoms affect my thinking. My thoughts should be independent of my atoms).

This is not the case, therefore free will is non-existant.



Yo El
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Netherlands

18 May 2017, 1:15 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Yo El wrote:
Depends on your definition of free-will.


How can there be more definitions?

Which definitions exists for free will?

My definition of free will is that I can make a genuine choice not influenced by external factors, unless I deliberately make the choice of considering those (ie. I can choose to draw my choices and conclusions on other facts, but my thinking is not influenced wether my atoms affect my thinking. My thoughts should be independent of my atoms).

This is not the case, therefore free will is non-existant.
So because the proces of a choice can be scientifically explained as being bound to matter it no longer exist? Why should thoughts be independent of atoms? Is it because atoms can explain or predict your thought?



Last edited by Yo El on 18 May 2017, 1:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,329
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 May 2017, 1:17 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Problems created by black and white thinking cannot be solved using black and white thinking


I was not asking a political question, it is more philosophical-psychological, rather than political.

That's how I understood it. My comment goes to the psychological state which leads to the philosophy you expressed.


_________________
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” - X. Li et. al.
I never said half the things I said - Yogi Berra


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,483
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 May 2017, 3:14 pm

What I get more from the article is not all human behavior/actions are dependent on free will, some is more subconscious not that there is no free will whatsoever. I mean for instance I have stims I do which I am in the habit of doing I usually am not aware when I start so its not a conscious 'choice' I make to do it. But it is a conscious choice if I decide I want a cup of tea and go over and make one...I don't just find myself making tea without realizing it, like with the stimming.

I certainly am not motivated to give up on everything and go into autopilot mode, because of this. Though it is interesting, I wonder if this gap between subconscious and conscious awareness also explains why sometimes when something intense happens quickly it seems to go in slow motion.

Like i remember one time me, my brother and my sister were at home during a storm and kind of messing around in the living room roughhousing a little, and at one point as the thunder and lightning went off and shook the windows my sister somehow fell into the window and it shattered cutting her arm. I mean it had to have happened in like 5 seconds but it seemed like 5 minutes. And kind of unrelated by for whatever reason our parents were convinced one of us broke it on purpose or something and were covering for each other, not sure they believed the part about the thunder playing a role in shattering the window. :?


_________________
Don't go on, put it back
You're reading from the Bible Black!


BaronHarkonnen85
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 128
Location: Tennessee

18 May 2017, 3:18 pm

I think the premise of no free will is wrong.

The mind and the brain are one. You cannot separate the two, so all of the neurons and the processes which happen in the brain are part of the whole and are not divisible.

If that is the case, then your decision are your decisions. Ergo, you have free will.


_________________
--Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
Have you accepted Pepe as your Lord and Saviour?


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,483
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 May 2017, 3:20 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Yo El wrote:
Depends on your definition of free-will.


How can there be more definitions?

Which definitions exists for free will?

My definition of free will is that I can make a genuine choice not influenced by external factors, unless I deliberately make the choice of considering those (ie. I can choose to draw my choices and conclusions on other facts, but my thinking is not influenced wether my atoms affect my thinking. My thoughts should be independent of my atoms).

This is not the case, therefore free will is non-existant.


I don't know I mean I know if I choose to have a cup of tea in the morning it is influenced by external factors...tea is a hot drink with caffeine similar to coffee, people drink that in the morning and thus I have picked up on doing it as well. I don't see that as it not being my choice just because its been influenced externally, and I don't consider why I am having a cup of tea every time I do it. Not sure free will has to be a choice free of any external factors or unconscious influence.


_________________
Don't go on, put it back
You're reading from the Bible Black!


Almajo88
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 298
Location: Merseyside, UK

18 May 2017, 3:43 pm

Defining free will is difficult. The idea that we are in absolute control of ourselves regardless of outside influences is so easily disproved that there isn't any point lingering on it. It's more difficult to disprove the opposite, that we have no control. The meaningful definition would be between having no control, and having limited control.

Let's also be clear that there is no 'proof' in that article, and it isn't fully sourced. There are links in the text but I'm in no place to look through those or assess their validity as sources.

Assuming that there is no free will, I don't agree with your conclusions.

"The criminals will be criminals nonetheless, regardless of punishments"

Why? If somebody commits a crime without free will - that is, due to outside circumstances - then that surely enhances prospects for rehabilitation than if their crimes were committed through an innate criminality? The lack of free will doesn't infringe on our ability to feel, and although it limits the range of our thoughts we still have the capacity to interpret and internalise ideas which will then affect our behaviour.

What I do agree with is that understanding the limitations of free will, at the very least, is important to understanding society. This reminds me, I need to get round to reading this http://www.creatingfreedom.info/



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,329
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 May 2017, 3:54 pm

BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
I think the premise of no free will is wrong.

The mind and the brain are one. You cannot separate the two, so all of the neurons and the processes which happen in the brain are part of the whole and are not divisible.

If that is the case, then your decision are your decisions. Ergo, you have free will.

Please, continue to demonstrate your knowledge of biology, such as it "is."


_________________
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” - X. Li et. al.
I never said half the things I said - Yogi Berra


Almajo88
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 298
Location: Merseyside, UK

18 May 2017, 3:57 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
I think the premise of no free will is wrong.

The mind and the brain are one. You cannot separate the two, so all of the neurons and the processes which happen in the brain are part of the whole and are not divisible.

If that is the case, then your decision are your decisions. Ergo, you have free will.

Please, continue to demonstrate your knowledge of biology, such as it "is."


Ah, but what is, "is"?

Image



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,329
Location: The end of the northwest passage

18 May 2017, 4:02 pm

I wonder if the Baron can type an entire post without using the verb "to be." The brash and unjustified dogmatism could not survive.


_________________
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” - X. Li et. al.
I never said half the things I said - Yogi Berra


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,760
Location: temperate zone

18 May 2017, 4:07 pm

No.

Even if there is no free will you still have to make decisions as if free will existed.

You cant just walk off cliffs, or sprint across the local limited access four lane highway at rush hour, or kiss live rattlesnakes, because you know for sure that "whatever happens is already fated".

Avoiding handling rattlesnakes may not really be "free will" ( you are equipped with common sense, and a cultural knowledge of rattlesnakes so these traits fate you to not do stupid stuff like handle rattlesnakes, but you still have to make the decision to not pet that rattlesnake you see on the hiking trail as if it were not free will and as if youre continued survival depended on that decision).