No free will = giving up?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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

Depends on your definition of free-will.

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.

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.

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/

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

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 you're continued survival depended on that decision).