Free Will vs Determinism
Free Will vs Determinism
I was a Political science major with a minor in philosophy, and I've come to realize that most political debates seem to boil down to a difference in opinion onfree will vs determinism. Free will thinkers are typically conservatives that believe we have the power to make our own choices, and therefor place blame when a negative choice is made. They refute the idea of determinism assuming there'd be no personal responsibility taken in our actions if it were true.
People that believe in determinism are typically liberals who believe that individuals are a product of their inborn traits and the environment, and if society is to change, we'd have to change the environment that shapes the brain as it develops. They refute free will assuming the concept creates blame and hatred.
For example.. Take a criminal. The free will thinker believes that the person chose to be a criminal and deserves punishment for choosing to become one. If things are to change we need harsher punishments etc.
The deterministic thinker believes the person is merely a statistic. 1 out of every x amount of people will become criminals. It's not the persons fault that they became a statistic. If things are to change we need to change society to lower chances of people becoming criminals..
My question is, how can someone actually believe in free will? If free will exists.. molecules and chemicals that drive our actions are being created in the brain from nothing, with no initial cause. It goes completely against the law of cause and effect. I don't see how the thought is logical.. Are you reading this post right now because of free will? or because the topic of free will vs determinism interests you and you circumstantially saw the title of this thread and clicked on it? How can anyone not agree that the latter is the case
People that believe in determinism are typically liberals who believe that individuals are a product of their inborn traits and the environment, and if society is to change, we'd have to change the environment that shapes the brain as it develops. They refute free will assuming the concept creates blame and hatred.
For example.. Take a criminal. The free will thinker believes that the person chose to be a criminal and deserves punishment for choosing to become one. If things are to change we need harsher punishments etc.
The deterministic thinker believes the person is merely a statistic. 1 out of every x amount of people will become criminals. It's not the persons fault that they became a statistic. If things are to change we need to change society to lower chances of people becoming criminals..
My question is, how can someone actually believe in free will? If free will exists.. molecules and chemicals that drive our actions are being created in the brain from nothing, with no initial cause. It goes completely against the law of cause and effect. I don't see how the thought is logical.. Are you reading this post right now because of free will? or because the topic of free will vs determinism interests you and you circumstantially saw the title of this thread and clicked on it? How can anyone not agree that the latter is the case
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
laws are meaningless if you have no control over your actions
-Imp
-Imp
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
That was the intention of Peacegirl on this and other forums. The proposal was to deny free will, remove the ability to do harm and with it responsibility for one's actions, and therefore remove the necessity for laws. What was proposed failed altogether, not because the concept was flawed, but the justification and execution was totally wrong, and the author followed the line to some very ridiculous conclusions.Impenitent wrote:laws are meaningless if you have no control over your actions
-Imp
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
If a vilain does not choose what he is doing how can the society choose whether to punish him or not and how ?
The executionist acts without free will either.
Everything just happens.
What would the Peacegirl respond to this ?
The executionist acts without free will either.
Everything just happens.
What would the Peacegirl respond to this ?
Re:
Absolutely not. I read your post, got to 'Do I choose' and immediately thought, "no." This probably happened because of my preconception on the subject. If there was no cause, then the thought just appeared in the universe all on it's own. That's not how it workshenry quirk wrote:"how can someone actually believe in free will?"
Put aside the placeholder 'free will' and self-interrogate: 'Do I choose?' Don't over-think it. The question is simple. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'.
If 'yes': then you're utterly self-responsible.
If 'no': then you're bio-automation.
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
You realize that the villain isn't a villain. Rather just a person that was born with a particular brain that went through particular things in life. If the person ends up doing things that society deems negative, the goal shouldn't be to punish the person. It should be to rehabilitate them so the negative action is prevented from happening again. We should then take a look at society to figure out how we can lessen the chance of that negative action from the next personduszek wrote:If a vilain does not choose what he is doing how can the society choose whether to punish him or not and how ?
The executionist acts without free will either.
Everything just happens.
What would the Peacegirl respond to this ?
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
if the individual actor acts outside of his own accord, how then will he act in accordance with the collective accord? neither he, nor society, have the choice of his action...
-Imp
-Imp
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Devon,
How do you square being bioautomation (if you don't choose then you're a robot) with society reforming itself (which is what you seem to call for with "If the person ends up doing things that society deems negative, the goal shouldn't be to punish the person. It should be to rehabilitate them so the negative action is prevented from happening again. We should then take a look at society to figure out how we can lessen the chance of that negative action from the next person.)?
If we're all just following programs (you, me, Joe Badguy, etc.), then how can any of us (individually, collectively) strive for anything? We might think we can (but that's just programming), some of us might try to (but that's just programming), some of us (like you, for example) might call for reforms (but that's just programming), some of us (like me) might believe our real experience of choice trumps a logical construct (cause and effect) and so might believe we each self-direct and -determine and therefore are each self-responsible (but that's just programming), and on and on and on...
If what you believe is true, then each of us is just a Roomba, pinballing offa the universe's furniture.
How do you square being bioautomation (if you don't choose then you're a robot) with society reforming itself (which is what you seem to call for with "If the person ends up doing things that society deems negative, the goal shouldn't be to punish the person. It should be to rehabilitate them so the negative action is prevented from happening again. We should then take a look at society to figure out how we can lessen the chance of that negative action from the next person.)?
If we're all just following programs (you, me, Joe Badguy, etc.), then how can any of us (individually, collectively) strive for anything? We might think we can (but that's just programming), some of us might try to (but that's just programming), some of us (like you, for example) might call for reforms (but that's just programming), some of us (like me) might believe our real experience of choice trumps a logical construct (cause and effect) and so might believe we each self-direct and -determine and therefore are each self-responsible (but that's just programming), and on and on and on...
If what you believe is true, then each of us is just a Roomba, pinballing offa the universe's furniture.
Re:
You're asking how we can progress without knowledge of choice? How does a bacteria evolve into a mammal without knowledge of choice? It just does. The universe will unfold itself and progress with our without our opinion on how it's happening. We all have an innate need to reproduce and seek pleasure in all it's forms, and we'll continue to do so with or without the belief of choice in the matter.henry quirk wrote:Devon,
How do you square being bioautomation (if you don't choose then you're a robot) with society reforming itself (which is what you seem to call for with "If the person ends up doing things that society deems negative, the goal shouldn't be to punish the person. It should be to rehabilitate them so the negative action is prevented from happening again. We should then take a look at society to figure out how we can lessen the chance of that negative action from the next person.)?
If we're all just following programs (you, me, Joe Badguy, etc.), then how can any of us (individually, collectively) strive for anything? We might think we can (but that's just programming), some of us might try to (but that's just programming), some of us (like you, for example) might call for reforms (but that's just programming), some of us (like me) might believe our real experience of choice trumps a logical construct (cause and effect) and so might believe we each self-direct and -determine and therefore are each self-responsible (but that's just programming), and on and on and on...
If what you believe is true, then each of us is just a Roomba, pinballing offa the universe's furniture.
Also, free will goes against rudimentary laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. If free will exists, then energy is being created.
Really, what is a decision? Your brain takes in information from the environment, and based on that information as well as the physiology of the brain, synapses fire off, and a "decision" is made. It's an extremely complex domino effect.
The concept of free will basically says that synapses fire off randomly. Randomness doesn't exist
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
So the person commiting an act of crime has no free will but the people who sentence him to death and who execute him do have free will and should use it in a reasonable and noble way ?devonmm wrote:You realize that the villain isn't a villain. Rather just a person that was born with a particular brain that went through particular things in life. If the person ends up doing things that society deems negative, the goal shouldn't be to punish the person. It should be to rehabilitate them so the negative action is prevented from happening again. We should then take a look at society to figure out how we can lessen the chance of that negative action from the next personduszek wrote:If a vilain does not choose what he is doing how can the society choose whether to punish him or not and how ?
The executionist acts without free will either.
Everything just happens.
What would the Peacegirl respond to this ?
How can it be ?
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
Never said that. The death penalty is societally instituted. You don't blame the executioner. You come together as a society, realize there's no good and bad and make changes so that the death penalty isn't needed.duszek wrote:So the person commiting an act of crime has no free will but the people who sentence him to death and who execute him do have free will and should use it in a reasonable and noble way ?devonmm wrote:You realize that the villain isn't a villain. Rather just a person that was born with a particular brain that went through particular things in life. If the person ends up doing things that society deems negative, the goal shouldn't be to punish the person. It should be to rehabilitate them so the negative action is prevented from happening again. We should then take a look at society to figure out how we can lessen the chance of that negative action from the next personduszek wrote:If a vilain does not choose what he is doing how can the society choose whether to punish him or not and how ?
The executionist acts without free will either.
Everything just happens.
What would the Peacegirl respond to this ?
How can it be ?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"You're asking how we can progress without knowledge of choice?"
No, I was asking how you reconcile being a robot with the idea that robots are supposed to reform anything when -- as robots -- all they can do is follow a program...I was kinda being rhetorical.
#
"Also, free will goes against rudimentary laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. If free will exists, then energy is being created."
Well, I'm not advocating for free will...no one can agree on a definition for it...I prefer to just go with 'choosing', 'choice'...lot less ambiguity that way...also, for me to say 'I choose' is a far less remarkable claim than 'my will is free'...to say 'I choose' doesn't put me outside of causal chains but merely points out I can direct (some) causal chains.
#
"Really, what is a decision? Your brain takes in information from the environment, and based on that information as well as the physiology of the brain, synapses fire off, and a "decision" is made. It's an extremely complex domino effect."
Well enough but barren. Preferable: I apprehend the world by way of my senses: I compare and contrast what I apprehend in the moment to what I've apprehended in the past: I assess, conclude, act.
In your description 'I' doesn't exist; in mine, 'I' is the dominant feature.
#
"The concept of free will basically says that synapses fire off randomly. Randomness doesn't exist."
Again: I'm not gonna defend 'free will', so...*shrug*
No, I was asking how you reconcile being a robot with the idea that robots are supposed to reform anything when -- as robots -- all they can do is follow a program...I was kinda being rhetorical.
#
"Also, free will goes against rudimentary laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. If free will exists, then energy is being created."
Well, I'm not advocating for free will...no one can agree on a definition for it...I prefer to just go with 'choosing', 'choice'...lot less ambiguity that way...also, for me to say 'I choose' is a far less remarkable claim than 'my will is free'...to say 'I choose' doesn't put me outside of causal chains but merely points out I can direct (some) causal chains.
#
"Really, what is a decision? Your brain takes in information from the environment, and based on that information as well as the physiology of the brain, synapses fire off, and a "decision" is made. It's an extremely complex domino effect."
Well enough but barren. Preferable: I apprehend the world by way of my senses: I compare and contrast what I apprehend in the moment to what I've apprehended in the past: I assess, conclude, act.
In your description 'I' doesn't exist; in mine, 'I' is the dominant feature.
#
"The concept of free will basically says that synapses fire off randomly. Randomness doesn't exist."
Again: I'm not gonna defend 'free will', so...*shrug*
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
"You come together as a society, realize there's no good and bad and make changes so that the death penalty isn't needed."
Well, some robots will come together cuz that's their programing, will have 'realizations' cuz that's their programming, and will (attempt to) make changes cuz that's their programming. Many other robots won't. Me, for example, my program sez shoot 'em in the head and be done with 'em.
Your programming may have you see me as violent and dangerous while my programming might have me see you as naive and muddled, but it's just programming...it doesn't mean anything...illusions, shadows, ghost whispers and angel farts.
Right?
Well, some robots will come together cuz that's their programing, will have 'realizations' cuz that's their programming, and will (attempt to) make changes cuz that's their programming. Many other robots won't. Me, for example, my program sez shoot 'em in the head and be done with 'em.
Your programming may have you see me as violent and dangerous while my programming might have me see you as naive and muddled, but it's just programming...it doesn't mean anything...illusions, shadows, ghost whispers and angel farts.
Right?
Re: Free Will vs Determinism
So when a person commits a crime he is innocent because free will does not exist.
If a judge wants to protect his community and himself because they are all scared and sentences this "criminal" to death and so gets the illusion of security for a while then free will pops up again and this judge representing the will of the people should behave according to high moral standards ?
When does the free will disappear and when does it appear exactly ?
Did the holy inquisition act with a free will or not ?
Because if not there is nobody to blame for the burning of heretics and witches.
Apart from "nature", "universe" etc.
This is a point that cannot be dismissed easily, so try again please.
Society as a whole has free will but the individuals don´t ?![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Double standards.
If a judge wants to protect his community and himself because they are all scared and sentences this "criminal" to death and so gets the illusion of security for a while then free will pops up again and this judge representing the will of the people should behave according to high moral standards ?
When does the free will disappear and when does it appear exactly ?
Did the holy inquisition act with a free will or not ?
Because if not there is nobody to blame for the burning of heretics and witches.
Apart from "nature", "universe" etc.
This is a point that cannot be dismissed easily, so try again please.
Society as a whole has free will but the individuals don´t ?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Double standards.