Warwick

I agree with your logic that leads to the above.

Do those people who do not believe free will, believe in fate by default?

I find it hard to believe that everything is pre-destined especially when I am an atheist.

I do believe that humans are electro-chemical machines that process information to make the best possible choice at the time.

Jamie_L

The connotation of the word "fate" tends to imply conscious purpose. I do not believe in that kind of fate.

If I were to not believe in free will, I would do so on this basis:

Everything humans do is a reaction to a stimulus. Who we are is determined by our genetics and shaping by our environment. When we make a "choice", we make our selection based on our internal desires and preferences, i.e., the state of our brain at the time. That brain state is the product of all the events our brain has experienced up to the moment of that choice. Given our brain state at that instant, there is only one reaction that will occur given the stimulus at hand.

We perceive it as a choice, but the outcome is really causally determined by all the events that lead up to it.

*shrug*

I have also always like the quote: "We have no choice but to believe in Free Will."

Jamie

JerryM

I agree that there is no free will in the absolute sense. Our choices are determined by the physio-chemical processes in our brains. But when I've discussed this with theists, they often misconstrue it to confirm their belief that non-theists don't accept personal accountability. This is certainly not the case. Behavior that is injurious or harmful to others cannot be excused and must have consequences. It may well be the case that some violent criminals have a neurological defect that impairs impulse control. But if they commit acts of violence, they should still be subject to penalties (such as incarceration), and should make restitution, as much as possible.

long winded fool

Free will from a technical sense may be illusory, but it is an illusion that cannot be seen through. If any one person is in possession of the exact nature of the hundreds and trillions of events which preceed their every thought, then this person would see that free will truly does not exist and that every action is determined by a set cause. (Such a person should also have exact knowledge of every event that will ever occur in their future.) Since no human being is in possession of such knowledge, the illusion of free will must be accepted as the actual basis for our actions, though we can comprehend the probablility that this is not actually the case. Whether we actually have free will or not is irrelevant to any thought process or behavior. Either way, we must think and behave as though we do.

Free will is often used by the religious to prevent God from shouldering the blame of evil. If we have no free will, we are not responsible for our actions and the creator of the system of events on which we are dependent is responsible for all past and future actions. (If there is such a creator.) Through human experience it would appear that, though we may not have free will from an intellectual viewpoint, we are the ones responsible for our actions. This is what society and the human understanding of reality is based on. This is a contradiction. Since all of our experience points to free will, this is the logical default position for analyzing any human action, even though though the opposite also appears to be true. In other words, though upon critical analysis we may not have free will in the technical sense of the word, we must always logically assume free will and behave as though we are all solely responsible for the choices we make. Until we can accurately predict all the future events of our lives, we should always assume that our choices are solely our own and accept the consequences that come from this.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: What is the point of presuming that humans do not have free will? You can logically declare it to be the case, yet you will never be free from the responsibility of making choices based on what you want/will. It would seem that all humans must assume they have free will, even if the universe is completely deterministic.

Nowhere357

From this POV, consider a situation where a person is convinced that no accountability for actions is possible. Saddam, for example. What then guides behavior?

Now say I was that person, and I notice the urge to abuse my authority (which seems to be a human thing to feel). I naturally try to resist the urge. What do you think of this active quality of resisting urges?

I notice that to resist my urges takes effort. A mental effort. I feel responsible for this mental effort; I feel as if I have some control over it. Without this control, there is no meaning in "mental effort". No effort exists. With this control, free will can be seen to exist.

This does not conflict with derterminism.

Philosoft

Well, we can, and probably should, act as if some degree of compatibilist free will exists, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. But I think the point is, our approximation of free will really isn't enough to let God off the proverbial hook, especially when coupled with the assumption that omiscience suggests God has no need to approximate anything.

99Percent

We don't have free will in the strictest sense because we are bound by the laws of physics.

But our actions are determined from virtually unlimited amount of factors, so in the practical sense we do have free will.

If you could predict perfectly how I will act or decide in any given circumstance then you can claim that I have no free will, but since you can't then you have no recourse but to declare that I am responsible for my decisions.

Eric H

Quote Bill B
Consequently, the choices we think we are making are actually preordained by our past experience. For example, you don't decide to commit suicide or murder. You will kill yourself or others if all the prior events in your life cause your neuronal balance to so indicate. And on a personal note, I wouldn't be writing this unless my brain "required" me to do so.
---------------------------------------------------



Now supposing you tried to say in court of law as a defence to a murder charge,

It wasn’t my fault, the murder was preordained and I am not responsible.

Would this be the equivalent of pleading insanity?

Peace

Eric

Bill B

Even though all murder is preordained, you are still subject to the laws and penalties of the society in which you live. Society is justified in protecting itself from you as it sees fit. Action against you is still necessasry even though you are not responsible in the theistic/ free will worldview sense.

With respect to insanity, is there really such a thing? I would argue for a much broader definition of "normalcy". I think one's behavior is better described in terms of the number of standard deviation units it is from the mean behavior of others. To a determinist such as myself, murder is murder, and is clearly preordained for everyone who commits it for the reasons I stated in my original post. (Who knows? Anyone of us could murder in the future.) "Organized society" should not waste time pondering differences between individuals committing it---but restricting the freedom of all who have done so seems reasonable to protect humanity at large.

Infinity Lover

If not being subject to any form of restriction, boundaries, etc. was a nessecity for existence, nothing would exist, pure and simple.

Either you think free will is some immaginary perfect selfcontroll, or you think the term describes our level of autonomy, and it's limited nature doesn't make it any less existent then... well anything else basicly.