36 replies to this topic

[Ragamuffin]

I'm not describing what actually occurs I'm pointing out the natural extension of a framework that rejects free will while still assigning criminal sentences. The actual legal system in many parts of the world is retributive.

Like you said, the legal system in many parts of the world isn't retributive, they just throw people in cells. So, the "If you don't see the sentence as being punitive, then there's no problem" logic isn't relevant to the vast majority of the world.And can you really say it rejects free will? After all, any of us at anytime can choose to stop following laws, etiquette, etc but mostly choose not to. Laws and government are not what stops people from taking an action, it's the (natural) consequences of them.

Prisons also tend to contain people who are on average more violent/murderous than the general population, perhaps there is a correlation between the two? Ideally being locked up would prevent someone from killing another person, the fact that actual prison systems fail to do this isn't really an indictment of such intent.

It still happens regardless, which was my point.

I think that free will would require some sort of soul or other dualistic concept, if people have free will they need to have something guiding their actions that completely undetectable, not just in practice (for example, if we can read minds it would be pretty easy to tell what someone is going to do), it doesn't matter that we can't read minds, so long as you accept that the person's thoughts determine their actions, we can in theory take away that person's free will by examining his thoughts. So there has to be something driving human action that is completely undetectable both in theory and in practice for there to be free will.

Interesting viewpoint, and fairly close to mine. As for a soul or other intangible form of existence/existing, that's where we part ways in thought. I believe that our wills, desires, choices etc are nothing more than chemical responses and differential thinking. I don't think there's really any mystery behind why we're the way we are, it's just that we've only come so far when it comes to understanding just how our minds work.

[38542788]

Like you said, the legal system in many parts of the world isn't retributive, they just throw people in cells. So, the "If you don't see the sentence as being punitive, then there's no problem" logic isn't relevant to the vast majority of the world.

The vast majority of the world subscribes to a belief in free will that assigns blame and subsequently punishment. I don't accept that so you can hardly blame me for how the world is.The truth of something isn't reflected in how many people subscribe to the belief either, the vast majority of the world believed that the world was flat in that past, the fact that my views aren't reflected by the world doesn't make them wrong (though it also doesn't say anything about them being right).

And can you really say it rejects free will? After all, any of us at anytime can choose to stop following laws, etiquette, etc but mostly choose not to. Laws and government are not what stops people from taking an action, it's the (natural) consequences of them.

That's the exact definition of lacking free will.If you accept that human behavior can be guided predictably, then we don't have free will. If we say that 99% of people in the world would not murder if they knew that a likely consequence of that is heavy prison time or execution, than we have compromised free will. The fact that not all people respond to this in the same way doesn't really matter, there is a reason for their difference that can be accounted for, their difference isn't due to their "free will".

It still happens regardless, which was my point.

I don't run the various prison systems around the world, and the point is only valid if you think that other options are preferable. For example, someone who murders inside a prison might murder more outside it, judging from a utilitarian perspective, the murders in the prisons are less bad.

Interesting viewpoint, and fairly close to mine. As for a soul or other intangible form of existence/existing, that's where we part ways in thought. I believe that our wills, desires, choices etc are nothing more than chemical responses and differential thinking. I don't think there's really any mystery behind why we're the way we are, it's just that we've only come so far when it comes to understanding just how our minds work.

I don't believe in souls though. I said that that (or something like it) would have to exist for there to be free will.

Edited by 38542788, 20 October 2009 - 10:08 PM.

[38542788]

A) If the unit of measurement isn't relative to what you are trying to measure, then how is it usefull? The example you use with money is correct, but money is relative to the worth of items, services. etc. Your units for measuring safety, however, are mesurements of other things, which may relate to safety, but do not quantify it.

This is just sophistry. If you deny that safety can be quantified, you can't say that any action makes you more or less safe.Aside from that, you seem to be completely ignorant of units of measurement actually work, for example, 1 meter is defined as c*s/299792458 where c is the speed of light in vacuum and s is one second (second is further defined by the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom). You can't "directly" measure time or distance any more than you can safety. You're just moving the goal posts because you don't want to admit that you're wrong.

B)I believe that i've made another example somewhere else in this topic about me being hungry, but choosing to not eat, even though in all logical sense I should have eaten.

You don't know why you didn't eat, that doesn't mean that the decision wasn't caused by your brain or it's somehow due to free will. If we rewind that day many times would you ever decide to eat? If the conditions are kept exactly as they are, including your thoughts and state of mind, would you somehow still be able to come to a different decision?

As far as other things that contribute, that was for making decisions, not free will.

That makes no sense, you just said in the last post that free will is "the ability to decide and act", why is decision making somehow distinct from free will now?Anything that we do (or act) is completely tied to our circumstances, even our thoughts. What does it mean to have the "the ability to decide and act"? Does a rock falling off a cliff "act"? If it doesn't, if it just responds to outside stimuli, how are people different? You seem to agree that it's not our thoughts that make it different so what is it?

But i will answer your question anyway. Environment, tradition, upbringing, and past experiences all contribute to the choices that you make.

None of that can be "free will", they're not in anyway controlled by an individual.

And my point of that post wasn't that animals don't have free will, you got that from your crazy self, how you made those connections idk...

You said several posts ago:

First off, our minds as humans are significantly different from animals, its one of the things that seperates us from them.

I assumed that that means you don't think that they have free will. Can you state this outright since you still seeming to be avoiding this question.

But we, as humans, have conscience, which animals do not. We can decide what is right and wrong, which is relative to the person making the decision, while animals just do what is neccessary to survive.

I don't know how you're defining conscience but animals don't do what is just necessary to survive, altruism is evolutionary advantageous and various animals sacrifice themselves for the good of the group.Besides, what does this have to do with free will?Are you saying that a conscience is what makes people have free will?

Edited by 38542788, 21 October 2009 - 12:18 AM.

[38542788]

A) I'm not denying that sefety can be quantified, i'm simply stating that your example wouldn't work because they define other things related to safety, but not directly saftey. And if you can't "directly" measure something, then how are you suggesting to quantify safety? And i don't think i'm wrong, so naturally i don't want to admit it.

When you say that something is 1 meter, you're actually saying that it's a certain fraction of the distance light travels in vacuum in one second. It's not a direct measure, it's relative to a standard. How is measure of safety any different?And if you say that safety can be quantified, there's is obviously a measure you can use to do so, that's what quantify means; it's assigning a numerical measurement to something.

B) Making a decision and free will are two different things. First off, decisions are actions, where as free will is not. Its a quality. Secondly, decision making is influenced by other things, where as free will is not. And yes, the things that we do are tied to our circumstance, but not dependant on it. There's a difference. As far as the rock thing, rocks aren't alive. It can't do anything on its own. Falling off a cliff is an act, but not an action of the rock. "The ability to decide and act" is the power to do what you do because you want to, not because someone else tells you to. A computer is a good example of this. It only does what it does because of what we tell it to do, its program. And as long as nothing interfers with that, it will continue to do this. It cannot "decide" to do something that we don't want it to.C) They aren't parts of free will, they are parts of making decisions.D) Alright. I don't believe that animals have free will. Yes, some animals sacrifice themselves for the group, but this is an example of survival. Sure, the individual animal might die, but the species as a whole survives. And you brought up animals first, so i don't know how this ties into free will, i was just replying to your previous post.

You said that free will is "the ability to decide and act for oneself".You have also said that people have free will while other things like animals and rocks do not.What give a person the ability to decide and act? An don't say free will, that's just circular. There has to be a physical or metaphysical source for free will. I brought up animals to illustrate this; animals are also capable of decision, this isn't just a question of degree, adult chimps are about as intelligent as human children, they're even capable of rudimentary writing or communication in a sign language. If people have free will and animals don't what is it that we have that gives us free will?We can decide to do what we want (so can animals) but this can't constitute free will because we're incapable of deciding what we want, we don't have control over our thoughts and emotions. You realize when I point it out, like the example of drugs modifying behavior, but you don't seem to get that this applies to everyday behavior because our brain on drugs or without drugs still totally controls our actions, just as animals brains control animal actions or the qualities of a rock affect whether and how it'll fall.I'll try to summarize my point here, this has gone on way too long with you avoiding my questions.You think that people have free will and other things do not. What do people have that gives them free will?You said that free will is due to "the ability to decide and act for oneself", but I pointed out how decisions and actions are completely due to physical processes in the brain. You don't seem to be disagreeing with me, so there must be something besides the brain that you think causes free will. What is it?

[38542788]

A) Because meters are directly measuring something. The light traveling in a vaccuum in one http://www.dgemu.com...-down.gifsecond is (X) long, and that is distance. From point A to point B is (X). It directly measures the distance. The examples you gave before, while they did measure other things, did not measure safety. Personally, i don't know how to quantify safety, that's why i asked how you do it, but i don't agree with how you quantify/measure it.

That's due to the fact that safety itself lacks a concrete definition in the same manner that distance does, it doesn't mean that we can't measure it. If we can reach a relatively trivial consensus, it can be measured. For example, if we both say that it's "safer" to drink water than bleach, we have established two points of relative safety.

B) I don't want to derail this thread with this, but i believe that God gives us free will. God gives us the ability to decide and act.And i answer your questions after you ask them, i am not avoiding them. Stop being niggardly. POINT: God gives us free will. We didn't do anything to gain it, and we don't have anything that bestowes it upon us. It was given to us, plain and simple.

I don't think you know what that word means because I certainly wasn't being ungenerous.Let's go back and see what I actually asked:

What do people have that gives them free will?

You seem to agree that it's not our thoughts that make it different so what is it?

If you can't name that, then what other things contribute to what you do that would constitute free will?

Why do you do what you do? Do you think it's because of the thoughts that occur in your brain or do you think that it's due to "free will"?

The sole point was to illustrate the consequences of dualism, you seem to be rejecting it so you do agree that your thoughts are determined by your brain, yes?

In order to have any sort of free will, you would have to propose some sort of non-physical object, like a soul, that somehow directs your actions irregardless of what's going on in your brain.

I included post 14 even though it wasn't a question because you took that long to get to the point and finally say "god did it, the world is dualistic, and we have free will because we have a soul."I'm using "soul" and "free will" as synonyms because here they are synonymous, they're nonphysical objects granted by god that somehow places humans above the natural world and guides our actions.You've admitted that you don't have a plausible argument for free will that isn't based in religion and superstition so I'm satisfied. I do agree that free will could be granted by god, in fact that's pretty much the only way for people to have free will. I just don't obverse this "free will" or any other evidence for the existence of god so I'm quite happy to reject both ideas whenever someone tries to push it on me.

Edited by 38542788, 21 October 2009 - 06:17 AM.