Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DRFseven · 06-20-2002, 03:30 PM

Kennyminot, let's cut to the chase. The reason MOST people argue against psychological determinism is that they feel they will lose their satisfaction in blaming "evil-doers" and in crediting those who do the right thing (particularly themselves!). I've even had people say to me, "I have to believe in free will or else I'll have to excuse criminals." To me this makes as much sense as the man who told me he didn't think my behavioral therapy OUGHT TO work with his son, since it didn't involve Jesus. Of course behavioral therapy works "without Jesus" and we blame perpetrators of crimes without "free will." I think it's better to just face this huge fear of mechanism so many people have and deal with it! I don't see the point in having to concoct elaborate compartmentalizations to keep our sensitive selves from swooning from the realization that there is a mechanism to the way we think. Jeezus, let's bring out the smelling salts and buck up!

jenn · 06-20-2002, 03:55 PM

Free will is a choice that one makes from their intention. Once one intends to buy the chex mix one also decides(chooses)to pick it up. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

DRFseven · 06-20-2002, 05:40 PM

Quote:

jenn: Free will is a choice that one makes from their intention. Once one intends to buy the chex mix one also decides(chooses)to pick it up.

And how does one choose to intend to buy the Chex mix?

FrankQ · 06-20-2002, 06:15 PM

If I can choose either A or B, there must be some reason why I chose A or why I chose B. There being a reason, isn't that a cause and therefore not free will?

On the other hand, supposing there were two red circles on a screen in fron of me. They are identical. There is no reason why I should choose one over the other.

Then if I do decide to choose one, say, the one on the right, is there a reason for this other than my will?

DRFseven · 06-20-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Fred: On the other hand, supposing there were two red circles on a screen in fron of me. They are identical. There is no reason why I should choose one over the other.

You've had experiences with things oriented left and right and with choosing between left and right situated items. The preference could be related to motor or other physical idiosyncracies, or superstition (luck). The reason could be unconscious.

A3 · 06-21-2002, 07:07 AM

DRFseven

Quote:

A3: We can have role models all over the place but we have the freedom to choose which ones we will model ourselves after.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We make choices, but there is no freedom in those choices unless you consider the entire situation the "chooser." Brain state = particular choice among alternatives and situation = brain state. We CANNOT HELP but select the option provided by the "choice wheel" of our reasoning schemes. You are what you eat, so to speak.

We can only select what we know (what is on our wheel?) Making that selection is us, our mind and that to me is free will. Indeed �we are what we eat� and we have the choice to eat where and what we please.
I have the feeling we are talking about the same thing but naming it differently.
Got to get back to work, see you later
Adriaan

DRFseven · 06-21-2002, 08:05 AM

Quote:

A3: Making that selection is us, our mind and that to me is free will.

Even though you have no way of addressing the reward mechanism that weights toward objectives, thereby selecting one particular alternative over all possible others?

Sure, people can call this mechanism free will, because it is we who possess the weighted memories that precipitate the choice. But this is like saying we determine when our hearts will beat because the sinus nodes are a part of us. If choices getting made is the criteria for free will, then other animals and even machines have free will, too. I don't think my thermostat has free will because, even though it decides when to turn on my air-conditioner, it is bound by the specifications of its situation (which happens to be electricity, it's internal schematics, and me), to narrow its possible alternatives down to one certain response. Though my brain is much more complex and my situation leads to the evaluation of many more alternatives, in the end, I am bound to prefer one. Not free to prefer one, but bound to.

Ierrellus · 06-21-2002, 08:26 AM

Once more time.

"Free" will is the probability of motion within established boundaries. Would you disagree, Nial?

Ierrellus

Pax

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

NialScorva · 06-21-2002, 01:39 PM

Sorry for the long delay, I got wrapped up in some stuff, and had to go out of town for a couple days.

There seems to be 3 foci involved in the free will debate: the moral, metaphysical, and empirical questions. The debates seem to take place in between these foci. The moral aspect is a question of justification for punishment or moral condemnation, an apparent paradox in situations where the criminal lacks the ability to choose any path other than that of crime. The metaphysical aspect is characterized by two general argument forms, one that requires an outside observer with definate future knowledge (time traveller or omniscient god) and one that is more of a rhetorical question ("We appear to have a choice, but do we *really* have a choice?"). The empirical aspect is a reflection of logical positivism, a scientific investigation assuming that we do have the ability to choose, but that it is constrained by biological and social factors. Rather than being a thing that has questions asked about it, I contest that it's a label given to a bunch of supposed answers.

I believe the moral question is the kick-off point for the entire debate. The most common notion of free will involves apologetics for an omniscient god's damnation of humankind. How can a just god create creatures that he *knows* will fail him, and punish them anyway for his flawed creation. The standard theistic answer is "free will". Free will is then defined to be the ability to make our own choices independant of god. The problem, of course, is that once you strip the moral fluff, you have a non-answer that assumes the consequent.

Q: How can we have a meaningful choice (one deserving of punishment or reward) if god knows ahead of time what it is?

A: Because god wants us to have free will.

Q: What is free will?

A: The ability to have a meaningful choice.

Which could be simply shortened to, "we have a meaningful choice because god wants us to", a complete dodge of the question dressed in the fancy term of "free will".

The moral aspect also shows up in secular philosophy as well, with the situation of "How can we justify punishing someone if they did not choose to do the act?". Again, we have the same problems of assuming what is in question. How can we justify anything if we don't have a choice? The moral question become irrelavent in a situation where there is no capacity for choice. No longer is there a should and should not, there is only is and is not. The question is a specialization of the general form "How can we make moral decisions if there can be no moral decisions?". The alternative to this contradictory situation is labeled "free will".

The empirical aspect is quite a bit seperate from the other two, in that it assumes that we are capable to some degree of acting as an causal agent, though we are limited in various ways. The primary advantage of this position is that while it makes assumptions, they tend to be of a non-cognitive and provisionary manner. Instead of invoking hypothetical outsiders, or concerning with moral subjectives, it merely assumes that the appearance of meaningful choice is all that matters until there's such a reason to assume otherwise. In otherwords, it's foolish to doubt our own ability to act in a meaningful mannner because the ability to doubt only exists under the illusion or reality of the ability to act in a meaningful manner.

In all cases, it's the *question* that comes first, not "free will". Never is there a question posed about free will or one of it's aspects, it's defined by posing the problem it supposedly solves. In this thread itself there's tremendous variation between definitions, and in fact I'm not entirely sure that I kept to the *exact* same definition in all my uses of "meaningful choice". The reason for this is quite simple, "free will" is a term used to answer a bunch of unanswerable questions, unanswerable because they invoke hypotheticals that cannot be known or because they are an artifact of our language. We assume that because we can ask questions about our ability to choose, that the ability to choose is something that can be investigated in such a manner.

John Page · 06-21-2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva:
....The moral aspect is a question of justification for punishment or moral condemnation, an apparent paradox in situations where the criminal lacks the ability to choose any path other than that of crime.

I don't see any paradox or apparent paradox, merely a practical way of holding individuals responsibel for their actions. Would you prosecute a wheel for not rolling on an inclined plane - no, it appears we cannot regulate a physical inevitablity.

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva:
.....We assume that because we can ask questions about our ability to choose, that the ability to choose is something that can be investigated in such a manner.

Well said. Who said "freedom is knowledge"? If we can forsee three outcomes to a situation and we control what causes them we can choose the outcome. The debate is then merely what causes us to choose, which in turn leads to the question of what we are.

That we do not know precisely how we make choices does not mean our choosing mechanism is non-deterministic. The capricious nature of human choice is evidenced by the fact that we can choose one thing one day and the next another. Maybe "possible choices" (as in hypotheticals) is one of the mechanisms we use to explore why we have choce in the first place.

Cheers, John

06-21-2002, 08:26 AM	#78
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Once more time. "Free" will is the probability of motion within established boundaries. Would you disagree, Nial? Ierrellus Pax [ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2002, 03:30 PM	#71
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	Kennyminot, let's cut to the chase. The reason MOST people argue against psychological determinism is that they feel they will lose their satisfaction in blaming "evil-doers" and in crediting those who do the right thing (particularly themselves!). I've even had people say to me, "I have to believe in free will or else I'll have to excuse criminals." To me this makes as much sense as the man who told me he didn't think my behavioral therapy OUGHT TO work with his son, since it didn't involve Jesus. Of course behavioral therapy works "without Jesus" and we blame perpetrators of crimes without "free will." I think it's better to just face this huge fear of mechanism so many people have and deal with it! I don't see the point in having to concoct elaborate compartmentalizations to keep our sensitive selves from swooning from the realization that there is a mechanism to the way we think. Jeezus, let's bring out the smelling salts and buck up!

06-20-2002, 03:55 PM	#72
jenn Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Tennessee Posts: 57	Free will is a choice that one makes from their intention. Once one intends to buy the chex mix one also decides(chooses)to pick it up. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

06-20-2002, 06:15 PM	#74
FrankQ Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 5	If I can choose either A or B, there must be some reason why I chose A or why I chose B. There being a reason, isn't that a cause and therefore not free will? On the other hand, supposing there were two red circles on a screen in fron of me. They are identical. There is no reason why I should choose one over the other. Then if I do decide to choose one, say, the one on the right, is there a reason for this other than my will?

06-21-2002, 01:39 PM	#79
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Sorry for the long delay, I got wrapped up in some stuff, and had to go out of town for a couple days. There seems to be 3 foci involved in the free will debate: the moral, metaphysical, and empirical questions. The debates seem to take place in between these foci. The moral aspect is a question of justification for punishment or moral condemnation, an apparent paradox in situations where the criminal lacks the ability to choose any path other than that of crime. The metaphysical aspect is characterized by two general argument forms, one that requires an outside observer with definate future knowledge (time traveller or omniscient god) and one that is more of a rhetorical question ("We appear to have a choice, but do we really have a choice?"). The empirical aspect is a reflection of logical positivism, a scientific investigation assuming that we do have the ability to choose, but that it is constrained by biological and social factors. Rather than being a thing that has questions asked about it, I contest that it's a label given to a bunch of supposed answers. I believe the moral question is the kick-off point for the entire debate. The most common notion of free will involves apologetics for an omniscient god's damnation of humankind. How can a just god create creatures that he knows will fail him, and punish them anyway for his flawed creation. The standard theistic answer is "free will". Free will is then defined to be the ability to make our own choices independant of god. The problem, of course, is that once you strip the moral fluff, you have a non-answer that assumes the consequent. Q: How can we have a meaningful choice (one deserving of punishment or reward) if god knows ahead of time what it is? A: Because god wants us to have free will. Q: What is free will? A: The ability to have a meaningful choice. Which could be simply shortened to, "we have a meaningful choice because god wants us to", a complete dodge of the question dressed in the fancy term of "free will". The moral aspect also shows up in secular philosophy as well, with the situation of "How can we justify punishing someone if they did not choose to do the act?". Again, we have the same problems of assuming what is in question. How can we justify anything if we don't have a choice? The moral question become irrelavent in a situation where there is no capacity for choice. No longer is there a should and should not, there is only is and is not. The question is a specialization of the general form "How can we make moral decisions if there can be no moral decisions?". The alternative to this contradictory situation is labeled "free will". The empirical aspect is quite a bit seperate from the other two, in that it assumes that we are capable to some degree of acting as an causal agent, though we are limited in various ways. The primary advantage of this position is that while it makes assumptions, they tend to be of a non-cognitive and provisionary manner. Instead of invoking hypothetical outsiders, or concerning with moral subjectives, it merely assumes that the appearance of meaningful choice is all that matters until there's such a reason to assume otherwise. In otherwords, it's foolish to doubt our own ability to act in a meaningful mannner because the ability to doubt only exists under the illusion or reality of the ability to act in a meaningful manner. In all cases, it's the question that comes first, not "free will". Never is there a question posed about free will or one of it's aspects, it's defined by posing the problem it supposedly solves. In this thread itself there's tremendous variation between definitions, and in fact I'm not entirely sure that I kept to the exact same definition in all my uses of "meaningful choice". The reason for this is quite simple, "free will" is a term used to answer a bunch of unanswerable questions, unanswerable because they invoke hypotheticals that cannot be known or because they are an artifact of our language. We assume that because we can ask questions about our ability to choose, that the ability to choose is something that can be investigated in such a manner.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.