Does free will exist?

[Ursa major]

Maybe...?



(Or I could have said, "I'll let you decide." )

 

[mosaix]

Does this discussion prove the existence of free will?

Only in as much as you think you have the choice to use a capital letter or not...

 

[Moonbat]

New scientist this week has dubbed itself 'THE GOD ISSUE' all capitalised

 

[Michael01]

Lofty eyes, a false tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart devising hurtful schemes, feet that are running to badness, a false witness that says lies, and anyone sending forth contention with others. These are all things that are said God hates. Does he hate feet that he created? No. All the above things come from a bad heart. Of all of those things listed, no one would like it if they were hurt in some way as a result of those things. Those things do not make life better. If you hate what is bad, then God hates what is bad. There is a proper way to do or view everything.

Okay...you got me. But at least I can say God doesn't hate people - just the things they do.

 

[Huttman]

That would be a logical conclusionsays the guy with the pointy ears.

 

[Michael01]

A logical conclusion that would be.

 

[Interference]

The Parson bites his tongue and doesn't comment on the ideas about God, but will say that when he writes about God in the pronoun sense he doesn't use a capital letter on the pronoun. It is an out of date writing convention, even in theological circles.

Oops

Of course, I suppose in the end, it's your choice whether to bite the ol' tongue or not, but please don't self-harm on my account

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned wannabe-theologian, at that

 

[mosaix]

New scientist this week has dubbed itself 'THE GOD ISSUE' all capitalised

Interestingly, in this issue, there's a review by Graham Lawton of a book by Sam Harris entitled Free Will. (Simon and Schuster £6.99)

Lawton says 'We either live in a deterministic universe where the future is set, or an indeterminate one where thoughts and actions happen at random. Neither is compatible with free will.'

He doesn't say that he is quoting from the book so I assume he is summarising.

According to Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1451683405/?tag=brite-21

'This title has not yet been released.'

 

[Ursa major]

Lawton says 'We either live in a deterministic universe where the future is set, or an indeterminate one where thoughts and actions happen at random. Neither is compatible with free will.'

I'm surprised he doesn't add: "Are you with me or against me?" or some other phrase that denies the complexities and grey areas inherent in existence.

 

[Michael01]

If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong? Without the ability to freely make decisions, then any "wrong" a person does is...what, biological? genetic? misfiring synapses? Fix the brain or the genes, or eliminate those that can't be fixed would be the proper solutions, then, right? No sense locking people up, otherwise.

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that free will exists and that people are responsible for the decisions they make. If anyone has an argument for why people are still responsible without free will, I will be interested to read it.

 

[mosaix]

If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong?

Well the judge and jury don't have any free will either - they just have to punish people.

 

[Michael01]

Wow...I wasn't expecting that answer, Mosaix - even though I did walk right into it.

 

[HareBrain]

It's a good question. The conclusion I've reached is that even if no one is able to operate indepenently of the external influences on their conscious mind -- i.e. has no true free will -- society can only really operate if it holds people to account for their actions, to some extent. The question is, to what extent? And if it started being more lenient to lawbreakers based on the idea that they weren't truly responsible, how many others would use that as an excuse to behave differently?

 

[Ursa major]

Lots I imagine, given that many people already do what they like in some instances, either believing that what they do isn't a big deal and harms no-one, or believing they won't get caught**. (At the extreme, look what happens when the rules break down completely, war zones, for example.)



** - Examples range from various traffic offences (speeding, use of phones while driving, etc.) to those rioters who took to the streets last summer only because they thought the police wouldn't stop them (which in many cases was true) and further believed that once they'd left the scene, no-one would come looking for them (which in many cases has proved to be less true).

 

[Michael01]

I'd thought that it might be necessary for society as a whole to take responsibility. "Punishment" might be inappropriate, but something would have to be done. While the technology does not exist, we would, of course, have to continue with the old way of holding individuals responsible. But then, with the right advances, we could directly eliminate the behavior with treatment of some kind.

 

[Interference]

Who revived this thread, anyway - and why???

 

[Michael01]

Because we don't have a choice...?

 

[Moonbat]

If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong?

Punishment restricts the wrongdoer's opportunities, as they have less chances in life they are less likely to be as succesful reproductively and so, eventually, the society can breed out the bad people.

That was not a serious answer that I believe in, but my argumentative nature made me type it.

 

[Michael01]

Punishment restricts the wrongdoer's opportunities, as they have less chances in life they are less likely to be as succesful reproductively and so, eventually, the society can breed out the bad people.

That was not a serious answer that I believe in, but my argumentative nature made me type it.

Well, I suppose we'd have to eliminate conjugal visits, then. Otherwise, I apologize for contributing to something of a derail here. It really was a choice I made. I don't think it was written in my genes.

Despite my devil's advocate questions, I actually do believe in free will. Unfortunately, I will have to take a bow and admit that I cannot argue it convincingly.

 

[Huttman]

If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong?

Some would say doing bad is its own punishment. Sure, it seems some people exposed for corruptness led lives of disgusting opulence based on stealing from others, but that is always short lived. Personally, I think we punish ourselves or reward ourselves, based on our perspectives. I believe in a greater reward fulfillment, too.

Without the ability to freely make decisions, then any "wrong" a person does is...what, biological? genetic? misfiring synapses? Fix the brain or the genes, or eliminate those that can't be fixed would be the proper solutions, then, right? No sense locking people up, otherwise.

I think it is a combination of these things plus others like what we are exposed to (especially early on). Habits are formed over time and as we become accustomed to certain things, our brain makes connections to solidify that habit, whatever it may be, a way of thinking, smoking or eating habits. We can change how our brain is wired, we just need to be disciplined about it because it is not easy, especially the older we get.
It is a shame America is so jail crazy. It does not work. We need to educate people better from the start and rehabilitate those that are in jail now and have a better system to not encourage disobedience in the first place. Easy, right?

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that free will exists and that people are responsible for the decisions they make. If anyone has an argument for why people are still responsible without free will, I will be interested to read it.

No arguments here, Number One. I'm inclined to think the same way.