Free will and why it doesn't really matter.

[Joe Schmoe]

But we can't. So how do we protect people in the interim?

Whilst we're still ignorant of a better solution, jail.

I'm sympathetic because it's our ignorance that condemns them to this life.

[James S Saint]

Hmm I see what you're saying.

Ok what causes Casuality?

The lack of alternative.

[volchok]

like how you claim to be a relativist but often act in a very dogmatic way.

I claim to be a relativist ? Man, you should have your eyes checked. I despise relativism. I think it is unsustainable and an impediment to intellectual discourse.

[volchok]

No need to introduce God, the 13 triangles of Oedipus' skunk, or the 7 moons of Memnon.

Loved this.

[lizbethrose]

There is, to me, a great deal of difference between determinism and causation. To me, determinism suggests some sort of plan while causation implies a reaction to an action or 'state.' In the case of a criminal mind, one, the other, or both could be at play only not under the accepted definition of determinism.

Will a poor/abusive childhood result necessarily in a criminal mind?--No way! If that were true, there would be many more criminals than there are. A lack of 'proper circumstances' does not a criminal make!

Does Causation lead to a criminal mind? It can. If all the factors of evolution and genetics led to the birth of a 'true' sociopath, then yes. But sociopathy, to me, is the result of incurable brain disfunction--a physical condition that neuroscience is exploring. So far, it seems to originate in the amygdalae.

There's no cure--there's no magic pill--that can reverse what nature has done. All that can be done with a 'true, sociopathic, serial killer' while maintaining the safety of society, is to kill her/him. I often use Ted Bundy as an example. His legal team tried to get his sentence reduced to life, just as Darrow tried to do with Leopold and Loeb. (And I'm not saying Leopold and Loeb were 'true' sociopaths--idk) Perhaps the difference is that, while L&L killed one boy, no one has any idea how many women Bundy raped and killed.

Ultimately, a single case may be irrelevant. I just think there have been more than one killer such as Ted Bundy--we Just don't know about them.

My point is, there are people whom we call truly evil and there are some we say were 'destined' to become evil by some sort of 'planned' universe. To me, a determined universe suggests a planned universe. And, to me, a 'planned' universe implies a 'planner.'

[Stoic Guardian]

like how you claim to be a relativist but often act in a very dogmatic way.

I claim to be a relativist ? Man, you should have your eyes checked. I despise relativism. I think it is unsustainable and an impediment to intellectual discourse.

Could of swore i heard you say that somewhere... oh well.

[Helandhighwater]

Frankly no one has even come close to answering the question of what free will even means coherently, let alone deciding whether we have it.

I have seen absolutely no evidence philosophical or scientific to decide the issue, and anyone who believes it is resolved either way is kidding themselves.

And yes I have seen the experiments on this subject, they are deeply unconvincing on the free will issue, as is the claims that are made by people about them.

Does free will matter: what is it would be a better question..?

[volchok]

There is, to me, a great deal of difference between determinism and causation. To me, determinism suggests some sort of plan while causation implies a reaction to an action or 'state.' '

What the fuck liz ?
This is beyond stupid.
You have been told countless times that determinism does not, I repeat DOES FUCKING NOT involve any plan. No one, who knows what determinism is, thinks that it involves a plan, and in no philosophy site will you find a definition that involves a "plan" so why do you keep on insisting that it involves a plan? This is just insane.

[Flannel Jesus]

volchok, calm down lol. lizbeth's not the sharpest knife, that goes without saying, so just leave her alone silly goose.

[eyesinthedark]

James S Saint: The lack of alternative.

Stoic.. be careful.. James' God is logical necessity. He believes 1. only logical things can exist and 2. there's only 1 way the universe could have logically been, and that's precisely the way the universe is.

[Helandhighwater]

I have stumbled into a turf war and what I have read leads me to beleive you have no argument, you'are just making it up as you go alonf.

So what is your argument:

let me give you mine if I may:

Let's say someone is a slave to their decisions, then they have no free will. What if we can show the decision making process precedes the decision, then surely free will does not exist. But aren't we jumping the guin here, cause I can make a decision, but I can change it, surely whether an experiment shows where I make a decision is irellevant, cause obviously where I make a decision is not decided when I actually have made decision, but when I Chose to do so. Let's face it all this crap you see about thought preceding actions is a joke, how many times have you yourself thought you were going to do something and then held off, time is contingent. Did you make the same choice later after pondering the facts, or did you change your mind. Any idiot who says that the first thing that comes into your mind is what you will do, deserves only contempt, you have time. And time is key.

Let's put it in an easy format so people can get this point.

Let's say an experiment is set up that let's you chose between right or left and red or green, let's say you have to chose either left or right, or red or green as soon as the option appears?

That is where science is at at the moment, let's say you canb ponder or debat eyourchoice and lets say something rides on it, and let's say that if you chose wrongly 100 people will die. In what way does any experiment eve remotely cover this?

Now you might say it does not matter, your first instinct will be the choice you make anyway, but what experiment has ever taken the time to show that, and until it does who on God Earth should even care.

Of course the whoel idea of free will isincoherent anyway but it is nbot helped by people who make assumptions the can neitehr back up or even care to.

[lizbethrose]

h&h, Welcome!

It's really more flaming than a turf war and I'm used to it.

The concept of free-will is one that has been debated for ages with no resolution. And you're correct, whether or not a person has 'free will' doesn't really matter in the general scheme of things, since it cannot either be proven or disproven. The question then, imm at least, becomes one of the definition (non-Nietzschean) of 'will.' "Will" means, to me, making a deliberate choice that leads to an action. "Free will" becomes a question of whether or not a person has the 'freedom of choice' rather than whether or not that freedom is constricted by the inevitability of all factors--both physical and non-physical--that have led to that specific choice. I really don't think anyone can be aware of all the 'things' that have determined what his choice will be. If determinists say "all decisions are made inevitable by things that have gone on before," that can't be proven. Pre-determinism takes it even further by saying everything that happens started with the BB--a causa sui, if you will. This is because 'events' must follow the 'laws of nature.'

Are there any "Laws"of nature?

[Joe Schmoe]

It's really more flaming than a turf war and I'm used contributing to it.

FTFY.

[lizbethrose]

What does FTFY mean? And how can I contribute to whatever if what I say is beyond stupid in any given topic--or am not the sharpest knife--in the knife drawer? Either answer my posts as they've been given or don't answer them at all.

[lizbethrose]

BTW, how do you do the strike-overs? That's a neat tool.

[Helandhighwater]

apologies for all those typos, I have a new PC, thus new keyboard.

Having read most of this thread I'd be interested to see if the current free will is impossible want to take a crack at my argument.

If you don't I will assume you realised you were wrong or just cant.

[phyllo]

FTFY=fixed that for you

Strikethrough is the [s] button about the editing window.

[Joe Schmoe]

How can I contribute to whatever if what I say is beyond stupid in any given topic--or am not the sharpest knife--in the knife drawer?

You're intelligent, but you're in the company of bastards. Bastards don't help the self-esteem of others.

Intuition alone isn't going to keep you in the loop, so to speak. Many others on this forum have keen intuition, but they also couple their intuition with knowledge that has been accumulated over the years by brilliant minds. You can't expect to be well received by bastards if you haven't tried to verify your intuition.

I think this might be your dilemma.

Thoughts?

[Arcturus Descending]

Also can someone tell me the differance between fatalism and determinism?

Your brothers, fatalism and determinism have fallen into a well. Your weakling brother, Fatalism, sits on the bottom waiting to die. Oops, he's dead. Your strong-willed visionary brother, Determinism, has already climbed half way up...ah, he's out and wiping himself off with a grin on his face.

[Flannel Jesus]

There he goes now, running to the out-house. Look here, what's this? What's this coming out of his ass hole?

Ah, free will, but of course.

[Flannel Jesus]

Much to my own surprise, actually, I've had a bit of a change of heart about my approach to the free will discussion -- I'm still very much a determinist, but I've come to agree with Eliezer_Yudkowsky's compatibilism.

[Stoic Guardian]

Thats what this philosophy forum is lacking! Humility!

Anyone can choose a Believe an stick to it, it's a philosophers virtue to at least humor the other side even if you don't believe it or agree.

[Arcturus Descending]

There he goes now, running to the out-house. Look here, what's this? What's this coming out of his ass hole?

Ah, free will, but of course.

Well, no one ever said that the courage it takes to exercise our free will was without fear of any kind or consequence.

[lizbethrose]

How can I contribute to whatever if what I say is beyond stupid in any given topic--or am not the sharpest knife--in the knife drawer?

You're intelligent, but you're in the company of bastards. Bastards don't help the self-esteem of others.

Intuition alone isn't going to keep you in the loop, so to speak. Many others on this forum have keen intuition, but they also couple their intuition with knowledge that has been accumulated over the years by brilliant minds. You can't expect to be well received by bastards if you haven't tried to verify your intuition.

I think this might be your dilemma.

Thoughts?

Intuition is often thought of as the internalization of accumulated knowledge--internalized to the point of being almost instinctive--iow, we don't know where the knowledge came from, it just is. Quoting a well-known, more often than not dead, philosopher doesn't really add much to a discussion since all of us have our own understanding of the philosopher's words. It's more important, to me, to try to explicate my own ideas rather than parrot another person's ideas.

Determinism has been countered, not by the concept of "free will," so much as by the idea that determinism implies (and I did say, 'implies', or 'suggests) a 'something' that determines causes and effects. That 'something' can be the Laws of Nature, except there are no real laws, there are only theories. That means, again to me, that any of the nuances of determinism cannot be proven--nor can they be disproven.

Will a given cause always have the same effect, for example? The cue ball can hit the racked balls and cause the scattering of the snooker or billiard balls in a certain way. Can the exact same scatter pattern happen every time the cue ball is hit? In order for that to be so, every detail of the pattern would have to be known and duplicated. That really isn't possible, to me.

[lizbethrose]

FTFY=fixed that for you

Strikethrough is the [s] button about the editing window.

Thank you, phyllo.