Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by ForCruxSake »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:15 pm
thedoc wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 1:57 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:43 am
You've shown us this before, doc. I do not think it means what you think it means. For all its folksiness, it is cynical attack on dissent; the message being that anyone who does not uncritically accept the rule of the church will burn in hell. That is not nice.
While Christianity is the focus of the story, the meaning is much broader and speaks to all aspects of life. Make a choice and move on.
I think it actually can be a practical life-lesson, even without the religious references, if we choose to apply it that way.

Let's take Peter Singer's famous "Shallow Pond" thought experiment: a child is drowning in a shallow pond, and you become aware of it. Three different attitudes on the part of the observer are possible:

1. Helpful -- Save the child.

2. Antagonistic -- Throw rocks at him until he drowns. If he tries to get out, push him back in.

3. Neutral -- Sit down and watch, and have some popcorn.

#3 is the "fence" option. But both #2 and #3 are "the Devil's" options. #2 makes you a cause of evil, but #3 makes you bad even though you chose not to take a position. It makes you callous and criminally negligent. The Devil owns the fence on that one.

Many issues in life are like that. Neglect your health, and you'll soon be sick. Do nothing when there's a fire, and you'll burn. Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent. Or, as the old saying goes, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing." Neutrality is often permissive of evil, and thus complicit with it, if not the cause of it. The Devil owns the fence.

So it's just a good cautionary note for anyone, I would say.
You've taken Stringer's model, which was about global responsibility and how perspectives of altruism don't hold up to simple practical realities, and made a completely different point. It's an interesting simile but it isn't Stringer.

You are equating what was a story about Christian belief with saving a life. This analogy only works if the belief system equates to saving lives. In the case of Christianity, and what has occurred in the name of Christianity, that's debatable.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

ForCruxSake wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm
thedoc wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 1:57 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:43 am
You've shown us this before, doc. I do not think it means what you think it means. For all its folksiness, it is cynical attack on dissent; the message being that anyone who does not uncritically accept the rule of the church will burn in hell. That is not nice.
While Christianity is the focus of the story, the meaning is much broader and speaks to all aspects of life. Make a choice and move on.
I have a feeling that uwot's right, doc. The idea is that those who can't decide belong with the Devil. The fence is his because those who believe in Christ would never have built it, let alone sit on it. The moral of the story is believe or be damned.
You do realize that uwot's an atheist, right?
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by ForCruxSake »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:32 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm
thedoc wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 1:57 pm

While Christianity is the focus of the story, the meaning is much broader and speaks to all aspects of life. Make a choice and move on.
I have a feeling that uwot's right, doc. The idea is that those who can't decide belong with the Devil. The fence is his because those who believe in Christ would never have built it, let alone sit on it. The moral of the story is believe or be damned.
You do realize that uwot's an atheist, right?
Yes. And what of it?

Why should that affect his ability to understand this little tale, or joke, or whatever it is, depending on which side of the fence you sit? It reads the same whether you're a Christian or not, as far as I'm concerned.

I have nothing against atheists or theists. I just don't like people from either (or neither) side who badger, or bully, others into accepting their ideas, without allowing thoughtful dissent. It's my view that people don't have to agree. They just have to disagree with a little respect.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

ForCruxSake wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:29 pm
You've taken Stringer's model, which was about global responsibility and how perspectives of altruism don't hold up to simple practical realities, and made a completely different point. It's an interesting simile but it isn't Stringer.
It's "Singer," actually.

No, and it wasn't intended to be an expatiation on Singer's point at all. I was just borrowing to show how an analogy could be worked. The key point was the idea of neutrality being passive evil. And I suggested several other scenarios in which the same was true, so Singer's point wasn't even relevant to this.
You are equating...
No, I wasn't. That was not my intention.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:15 pm
thedoc wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 1:57 pm
uwot wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 7:43 am
You've shown us this before, doc. I do not think it means what you think it means. For all its folksiness, it is cynical attack on dissent; the message being that anyone who does not uncritically accept the rule of the church will burn in hell. That is not nice.
While Christianity is the focus of the story, the meaning is much broader and speaks to all aspects of life. Make a choice and move on.
I think it actually can be a practical life-lesson, even without the religious references, if we choose to apply it that way.

Let's take Peter Singer's famous "Shallow Pond" thought experiment: a child is drowning in a shallow pond, and you become aware of it. Three different attitudes on the part of the observer are possible:

1. Helpful -- Save the child.

2. Antagonistic -- Throw rocks at him until he drowns. If he tries to get out, push him back in.

3. Neutral -- Sit down and watch, and have some popcorn.

#3 is the "fence" option.
Not my fence, as no ones life depends upon either sitting or not sitting on it! So not pertinent at all!

But both #2 and #3 are "the Devil's" options.
Not at all, because the devil is a myth. No.2 could be said to be evil. But No.3 might be that one doesn't know how to swim. 1 drown, 2 drown, 3 drown, 4, 5 drown, 6 drown, 7 drown, more?

#2 makes you a cause of evil, but #3 makes you bad even though you chose not to take a position. It makes you callous and criminally negligent.
Not if they can't swim!

The Devil owns the fence on that one.
There is no such entity as the devil, except for those, of small minds!

Many issues in life are like that. Neglect your health, and you'll soon be sick. Do nothing when there's a fire, and you'll burn. Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent. Or, as the old saying goes, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing." Neutrality is often permissive of evil, and thus complicit with it, if not the cause of it.
Tell that to the Swiss! And I think they'll, deservingly, punch you in the nose.

The Devil owns the fence.
Not my fence, only I own that one!

So it's just a good cautionary note for anyone, I would say.
Not when it comes to the christian religion, it's not. In that case it's, "look out for the swampland!"
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

ForCruxSake wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:55 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:32 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 9:56 pm
I have a feeling that uwot's right, doc. The idea is that those who can't decide belong with the Devil. The fence is his because those who believe in Christ would never have built it, let alone sit on it. The moral of the story is believe or be damned.
You do realize that uwot's an atheist, right?
Yes. And what of it?
You figure it out!

Why should that affect his ability to understand this little tale, or joke, or whatever it is, depending on which side of the fence you sit? It reads the same whether you're a Christian or not, as far as I'm concerned.
No it doesn't, it doesn't read at all, except as a fools fairytale! It's lopsided. It's biased towards religion, as if religion is necessarily correct, it's not! Maybe you're just incapable of seeing it, or you're a theist too, you know birds of a feather! You missed the fact that uwot said it wasn't nice, and I agree with him, it's not!

I have nothing against atheists or theists. I just don't like people from either (or neither) side who badger, or bully, others into accepting their ideas, without allowing thoughtful dissent.
This is a philosophy forum, they said "know", and that's impossible, they can only ever "believe."

It's my view that people don't have to agree. They just have to disagree with a little respect.
And respect goes both ways!!!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 1:04 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:29 pm
You've taken Stringer's model, which was about global responsibility and how perspectives of altruism don't hold up to simple practical realities, and made a completely different point. It's an interesting simile but it isn't Stringer.
It's "Singer," actually.

No, and it wasn't intended to be an expatiation on Singer's point at all. I was just borrowing to show how an analogy could be worked. The key point was the idea of neutrality being passive evil.
And you're barking up the wrong tree!

And I suggested several other scenarios in which the same was true, so Singer's point wasn't even relevant to this.
You are equating...
No, I wasn't. That was not my intention.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

ForCruxSake wrote:
I have a feeling that uwot's right, doc. The idea is that those who can't decide belong with the Devil. The fence is his because those who believe in Christ would never have built it, let alone sit on it. The moral of the story is believe or be damned.
I agree but I like the scenario. I'd change the story so that Christ came along and said Satan is lying as usual and that the fence belongs to Christ. Then a mighty Archangel comes along and battles Satan for the souls of all the men including the ones who went to Hell.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by ken »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:15 pm Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent.
How do you propose that follows?

If you brought up children with only love [proper guidance and care] AND also allowed them to do as they please, then why would you be a horrible parent?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:15 pm Or, as the old saying goes, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing."
You believe that a God exists right? Does that God interfere with human beings or does It let It's children [human beings] do as they please?

If a God does let It's children do as they please, then does that make that God a horrible "parent"?

If God does not let It's children do as they please, then how does God do this?

And then how does your responses reflect with your beliefs in free will and/or determinism.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Hello, Ken:
ken wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 10:47 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:15 pm Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent.
How do you propose that follows?

... [proper guidance and care]...
If you're giving them this, then there are a number of things they are likely to want to do, that you will not let them. For example, you won't let them play on the roadway. You won't let them eat nothing but sugar. You won't let them stay up as late as they would sometimes wish. You won't let them watch anything they find on the internet...and so on.

The distinction between "proper guidance" and permissiveness is the very distinction I'm pointing to. Absent "proper guidance," yes, you'd be a horrible parent -- and uncaring, too, since you would evidently have no concern for their actual welfare. But I think you already know that, because you felt inclined to add "proper guidance and care" as a conditional to your question. Absent those, there would be bad parenting going on.
You believe that a God exists right?
Yes.
Does that God interfere with human beings or does It let It's children [human beings] do as they please?
You'd have to nuance your characterizations before I'd know what was the appropriate answer there. Do you mean, "Does God allow their wills to have effects," or "Does God micromanage the universe?" Or "Are miracles possible," or "Does 'natural law' eliminate the possibility of divine action..."

You can see the difficulties in interpreting your question, I'm sure.
If a God does let It's children do as they please, then does that make that God a horrible "parent"?
I would say we're too far from describing the situation there, by way of a poor analogy. For parents are notoriously deficient in omniscience. They are incapable of seeing all of the best outcomes from the beginning, or of calculating the real effects of their decisions. They also lack the omnipotence to bring about what they discern to be the best results. They merely do the best they can, and always in a flawed way.

So at best, I would suggest that the word "parent" there is a weak analogy, not entirely unfitting, but not good if we try to apply it in absolutely every respect. God also doesn't have labour pains when we're born, or die when we're in late middle age. That doesn't make Him less of a "parent." But it also makes him somewhat unlike human parents.
If God does not let It's children do as they please, then how does God do this?
Why would we presume an either/or? Why not consider that God sometimes allows complete freedom, and sometimes intervenes? Do not good parents do exactly the same? They let the children play as they please...within appropriate bounds...only intervening when necessity and love dictate they should.

Why not rather say both?
And then how does your responses reflect with your beliefs in free will and/or determinism.
I'm not a Determinist (i.e. no free will). Nor am I a Deist (i.e. nothing but free will). When it comes to speaking of divine action, I would say I'm of the "both" camp. There is genuine human free will. There are also periodic episodes of direct divine action. And with both, there is complete foreknowledge by God, and so ultimate divine sovereignty. That's where I sit at the moment.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by ForCruxSake »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 1:04 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sat May 20, 2017 10:29 pm
You've taken Stringer's model, which was about global responsibility and how perspectives of altruism don't hold up to simple practical realities, and made a completely different point. It's an interesting simile but it isn't Stringer.
It's "Singer," actually.

No, and it wasn't intended to be an expatiation on Singer's point at all. I was just borrowing to show how an analogy could be worked. The key point was the idea of neutrality being passive evil. And I suggested several other scenarios in which the same was true, so Singer's point wasn't even relevant to this.
You are equating...
No, I wasn't. That was not my intention.
My apologies. Predictive text.

I wish you hadn't even credited Stringer... And there he is again... Singer!... as your idea was so removed from his, as to be irrelevant. That's the thing: unless you make it clear you are not referring to his model, just taking his Lego bricks to make your own idea, then it becomes impossible not to think of his idea.

It was a good rework of the image he* set up, and totally analogous to thedoc's story.

(*Can't even type his name now, as in the battle with predictive text, predictive text always sins... wins!)
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by ForCruxSake »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 1:21 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:55 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:32 am You do realize that uwot's an atheist, right?
Yes. And what of it?
You figure it out!
Figure WHAT out? If there's something you think needs pointing out, then point it out, but don't tell me to figure out the answer to something cryptic, that you seem to be alluding to, with no thought for clarity.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:32 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:55 am Why should that affect his ability to understand this little tale, or joke, or whatever it is, depending on which side of the fence you sit? It reads the same whether you're a Christian or not, as far as I'm concerned.
No it doesn't, it doesn't read at all, except as a fools fairytale! It's lopsided. It's biased towards religion, as if religion is necessarily correct, it's not! Maybe you're just incapable of seeing it, or you're a theist too, you know birds of a feather! You missed the fact that uwot said it wasn't nice, and I agree with him, it's not!
That's not a critical, but a judgemental, evaluation you are making. You seem to be running with bias.

The story makes a point in a clever way. It's laid out like a joke, with a punchline at the end. As stories, or jokes, go, it worked. Whether I believe, or not, has nothing to do with my enjoyment of how its crafted, or the telling of the tale.

The same goes for whether or not I would dismiss uwot on what he has to say simply because he is an atheist. If what he says makes sense, I'm not going to argue with it, unless I see a/the counter argument. I respect his choice not to believe as much as I respect IC or thedoc's choice to believe. If I disagree with any of them I say. I've disagreed with thedoc, but it wouldn't stop me from sharing tea and biscuits with him. I've not disagreed with uwot but there's not been the hint or suggestion of a shared Hobnob being proffered in either direction.

I don't really give a damn about what people believe. I'm more interested in why they would choose to believe it. I do give a damn about how they go about sharing their views. People here sometimes express themselves with such passion and that can be as ugly as it can be beautiful... but generally people here are rational, intelligent and cogent. What's there not to like?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:32 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:55 am I have nothing against atheists or theists. I just don't like people from either (or neither) side who badger, or bully, others into accepting their ideas, without allowing thoughtful dissent.
This is a philosophy forum, they said "know", and that's impossible, they can only ever "believe."
So let them believe. If they profess to 'know' then you can always challenge their knowledge. It's how they spin the thought around their beliefs that can be engaging, or sometimes annoying, but that could be said of the atheists, too.

Enjoy the joust and be thankful you even have opponents to challenge. There was a time once when sportsmanship operated. You'd have your battle, your match, and shake hands at the end. You could have been resentful, at having met your loss at the hands of more competent opposition, or condescendingly smug, at having beaten someone so out of your league, but sportsmanship always demanded a healthy respect for your sport, and your opponent, and a show of as much. So you'd shake hands at the end of the match and reserve judgement. Sportsmanship seems to have been replaced by oneupmanship, in the present day, and it brings with it such malevolence and ego, and hand slapping rather than hand shaking.

You are clearly not a theist and yet you seem to be talking with such obvious judgementalness and bias, that you yourself are coming across as, as ill-equipped to argue as the 'knowing' believer.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:32 am
ForCruxSake wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 12:55 amIt's my view that people don't have to agree. They just have to disagree with a little respect.
And respect goes both ways!!!
Glad you agree. Hope for but don't expect it of others. Always expect it of yourself.

Now I'm just waiting for the believers to chime in with "Give and you will receive."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

ForCruxSake wrote: Sun May 21, 2017 11:27 pm
My apologies. Predictive text.
No worries. It happens.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Re:

Post by thedoc »

devonmm wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:59 pm
henry quirk wrote:Devon,
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.

The concept of free will basically says that synapses fire off randomly. Randomness doesn't exist
BS. Free will is just the will redirecting energy from one direction to another, it has nothing to do with creating new energy.

Randomness is a part of nature, it does exist.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

The practical, political, application of belief in Free Will is that a person is to blame for what they do wrong and therefore criminals receive deterrent and retributive treatment.This applies also to religionists who believe that God will separate off the sinners and punish them in Hell, and only some people are saved. Believers in Free Will tend to be politically right wing .

The practical, political, application of determinism is that a person is not to blame for what they do wrong and therefore criminals should receive deterrent and rehabilitative treatment. This applies also to religionists who believe that God who knows all will forgive all sins and all are saved. Believers in determinism tend to be politically left wing.

Believers in determinism tend to seek for causes of crime and other bad behaviour and address the causes, whereas believers in Free Will tend to ignore the causes of crime and are punitive.

Believers in Free Will blame foreigners for any aggressiveness and believers in Free Will tend to be pugilistic whereas believers in determinism try to use diplomacy wherever possible to allay threats from aggressive foreigners.
Post Reply