How can there be free-will when our Will is just a response to circumstances?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by arpgme

Wow... What a thread...
Is it a troll number? Or our education institutions failed even to the talented ones?
Come on folks...
Why so many people have no clue about the basics of the human rights?
The Pursue of Happiness should be a non issue for the us-americans, as well as “das Grundrecht” for germans, the French constitution for the frenchs and so on...
It's all basically the same thing, the basic concepts of "Natural Law" anchored on the constitutions of every modern country, it should shed some lights on this matter.
It's really a saddening moment in the history of the human kind, when educated people get so misinformed that they can not see the difference between WILL and FREEWILL.

Let's put it in a simple way...
One can WISH everything, but it does not give him any automatic right to get it as he wishes, even if one JUST COULD DO OR TAKE IT at WILL.
FREEWILL, is a right. This is very close to the Right of SELF DETERMINATION and the PURSUE OF HAPPINES.
If ONE wants something, and ONE can bare the consequences of it's acts, does not harm anybody else regardless of the contemporaneous understandings of “normal” or “acceptable”... So, it qualifies as a WILL and as his FREEWILL. If one really wants to go for it.
If ONE want to punch somebody's else face, it's just a nasty will, and ONE should be ready for the payback, because the Right of Self Deffence is also a natural given RIGHT.
No LAW of MAN can take it away from anyone or anything.

Can you see where lies the difference?

I'd recommend you to take two hours of your life and read Frédéric Bastiat's “THE LAW”.
It's a very small book, based on an ancient truth that may help to expand your horizons a lot.
If more people would understand this basic principles, 95% of the layers and 99,9% of Law Makers would be obsolete.
And the Human Kind would live a much more fulfilling life.
It sickens me that we need an army of layers to explain us such basic things...
peace and a spark

reply to post by Revolution9


Jesus supported slavery and never spoke out against murdering gay people and witches. He never spoke out against raping little girls and treating them like property.

Strange that the thing he did choose to die for was saying hes the king of the jews.

a pretty *^(&ing useless person if you ask any rational person.

Originally posted by Revolution9
Not so! I started out as a Christian. Then I became pagan for a long time. I practised magic.

And then you decided practising magic wasn't for you after all?

reply to post by Wertdagf
hallo Wertdagf,
I'm don't know much about religions, but I think you are on the wrong path of distraction, division and useless conflicts...
Besides... I think this thread was about the question if FREEWILL exists or not, right?
I think it does, it existed before Christianity or any other religion, it's part of every life form.
I'm sorry for the ones who have doubts about it.

let's try harder to
DENY IGNORANCE

peace & a spark

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by vasaga

 

Regardless of freewill you still lock people up if theyre dangerous.

I wouldnt expect you to see that when your so busy defending some imgainary concept created by the ignorant.

edit on 13-12-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Tell me again what is wrong with this way of thinking:

There are 3 scenarios

1- Free will does not exist:
Everything remains the same as it is now. Like you yourself said, they were meant to be in prison and so on, so nothing would change and life would go on as is. People can not be held responsible, but it doesn't matter because everything happens the way it's supposed to happen.

2- Free will exists and we acknowledge that free will exists:
People are held responsible for their actions and will get certain consequences depending on their actions. They are not merely illusions, but actually real.

3- Free will exists but we pretend it does not exist:
Everyone can get away with any action, completely free of any consequences, because according to our view, they were meant to act that way anyway, even though that is not the case.

Scenario 1 and 2 are whatever, but scenario 3 should be avoided like the plague.

Let me expand on this.. Even IF there is no free will, there is no reason to crusade to 'convert' people into believing there is no free will. Having no free will means that whether we believe in free will or not is irrelevant because we do what we are supposed to do, always have and always will, and believing in free will is part of that.
The only reasonable position is to assume that there is free will, just in case there IS free will, because assuming otherwise is a direct road to the worst case scenario. So in short, it's like this:

Scenario 1, There is no free will:
Everything stays the same whether we believe in free will or not, since everything and every action is already predetermined, even believing you have free will is predetermined.

Scenario 2, There is free will and we acknowledge it:
Everything stays the same because our society is based on having free will and having the right to punish

Scenario 3. There is free will but we deny it:
Everything gets worse because we lose the right to punish since lack of free will directly implies lack of responsibility.


Scenario 3 should be avoided at all cost. Believing there is no free will, will put us in either scenario 1 or scenario 3, while believing there is free will puts us either in scenario 1 or scenario 2. Believing there is no free will gives a one in two possibility of things getting worse, while believing there is free will completely avoids the scenario of things getting worse, and therefore, the better assumption, until infallibly proven otherwise, is that we have free will.

You call it an 'imaginary concept created by the ignorant'. But you are already assuming that scenario 1 is true, while I have not made any assumption about which one is true, but simply presented all three possibilities. So to say I'm defending some imaginary concept is the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one supporting scenario one with a lack of conclusive proof, and if you're wrong, it'll doom us all. I'm still waiting for someone to find a flaw in the argument, other than bs fallacies.

Reply to post by arpgme

But your premise relies on the basis of us only making choices which will either benefit us, or that are based solely on reaction. This isn't true. Often we make hard choices which will not help ourselves, but help others. That's the whole point. No on is forced to do anything selfish. You do not have to give the homeless a 5 dollar bill. You can walk away because that suits you. You can also make the decision to help the guy and give him the money. Free will is all about growth and evolution as a human being. The ever present quest to either be a better person or a more selfish person. The existence of a result doesn't negate the concept. It strengthens it. What better defines free will than the act of making a difficult choice in the face of an undesired result? Making said choice for the benefit of someone else? You are in fact free to do whatever you choose. You can either wake up or sleep another hour. That too is free will.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by vasaga


Your senarios are idiotic.

It seems like they come from a mind riddled with superstitious nonsense. Society evolves and changes as information permetates.

We already live in a world where freewill doesnt exist... if you want to be concerned about something... then be concerned about all the delusional religious fools who think without biblical freewill they can rape and murder.

But we all know they are really just throwing a tanrum like the children they are. We could always use more people to make license plates and wash laundry.

reply to post by Parksie

Regardless of your reaction, the guy who punched you did so with his own free will

Dead wrong...
FREEWILL is a right!! WILL and Freewill are not the same thing...
Never heard of the "Golden Rule"?
What's the point of this thread? Does it have any educational purpose?
Just asking...

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by vasaga

 

Your senarios are idiotic.

It seems like they come from a mind riddled with superstitious nonsense. Society evolves and changes as information permetates.

We already live in a world where freewill doesnt exist... if you want to be concerned about something... then be concerned about all the delusional religious fools who think without biblical freewill they can rape and murder.

But we all know they are really just throwing a tanrum like the children they are. We could always use more people to make license plates and wash laundry.

When all else fails, just turn to insults right? And look at the bold part. That's the problem right there. You already assumed scenario 1. I'll let people who saw the arguments be the judge. I'm done responding to you.

reply to post by vasaga


The statement that if our thoughts are causational then no one can be put in jail or even attempt rehabilitation is idiotic. The statement we should pretend that freewill exists just incase it does exist is idiotic.

How does causational cognitive models lead to a society where people are running around in the street raping and murdering eachother? It doesnt make any sense and your entire argument is based off of an apeal to emotion with no content and your discriptions are childish and poorly thought out.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by vasaga

 

The statement that if our thoughts are causational then no one can be put in jail or even attempt rehabilitation is idiotic.

Straw Man + Appeal to Ridicule

Originally posted by Wertdagf
The statement we should pretend that freewill exists just incase it does exist is idiotic.

Appeal to Ridicule

Originally posted by Wertdagf
How does causational cognitive models lead to a society where people are running around in the street raping and murdering eachother?

Straw Man

Originally posted by Wertdagf
It doesnt make any sense and your entire argument is based off of an apeal to emotion with no content

Red Herring + False Charge of Fallacy

Originally posted by Wertdagf
and your discriptions are childish and poorly thought out.

Ad Hominem

A full list of fallacies does not make a sound argument.

you might have free will but.....do you have SELF - CONTROL TOO

people do some pretty messed up things when they ingest things that alter their thinking....drinking to excess....mind altering drugs....pharmaceuticals......

do people have ANY self control or they can just pass the blame around.....own up to your own excess ....if you want to feed an entity try some MODERATION

reply to post by vasaga

if we pretend it does not exist then Everyone can get away with any action, completely free of any consequences

The only reasonable position is to assume that there is free will, just in case there IS free will, because assuming otherwise is a direct road to the worst case scenario

Most scientists suck at philosophy though

Believing there is no free will gives a one in two possibility of things getting worse, while believing there is free will completely avoids the scenario of things getting worse, and therefore, the better assumption, until infallibly proven otherwise, is that we have free will.

Abolish free will, and people can not be held responsible for their actions, any more than you can hold a space rock responsible for falling on your head. That alone should be a reason to uphold free will.

It seems im not the only one huh? Although when you say that if we dont agree with you all society will collapse, me saying something like that is childish and poorly thought out is a bit extreme.

Edit:
reply to post by Wertdagf

Selective quoting doesn't prove anything. You either understand the argument or you don't, and it's obvious that you don't.

reply to post by BcnDiamond

Ok so I can sit here in my chair and say "I don't have free independent will because my will is attached to my past experiences, my genetic makeup and the world in which I live." However, as you state, for all intents and purposes, our ability to grasp this concept is out of reach, so.. may just as well be free. Arguing about it is like arguing about the existence of God.

There's also the issue that some people might use this argument to justify bad behavior. They might argue "Well, it's not ALL my fault I'm this way. If you want to blame, blame the world too! I'm its (conscious) product! I didn't produce myself separately in an alternative universe, I am both the baker and the baker's bread!" The line between our "self" and the world we inhabit is hard to define, so someone can easily make this argument. For this reason, not everybody believes in substance dualism - the belief that there're two distinct and fundamental elements in the universe: physical and living. Whether someone can use this information gap as justification to commit crimes and spread anarchy and suffering, is probably not something they would want to do since, by their own argument, they're subject not just to themselves, but to the world. So if they do wrong to others or spread pain, they will probably receive it as a response. Who WANTS pain and suffering? Most do not, but our actions, on a basic level, usually in some way contribute to it. And I could make the argument that our "self" requires the presence of conflict and death in order to function.

I believe we have little choice, ultimately. This is just my honest feeling. I do not know if my outlook on this causes me to make more bad choices than others. But everytime I start to consider this, I just cannot overlook the vastness of the universe and its history and just how small I am in comparison. We don't choose where we're born, the circumstances, the history, etc. We can't even say the world we're born in is a good one. For all we know, earth is the worst place to live in the universe. There're several billion other people, but on hte other hand, there're several points between all of us. Every action I make is only several people away from eveyr other person on the planet.

People end up believing whatever tickles them, I guess. Like whne you look at the glass and say it's half-full or half-empty. Or you say there's an after-life or there's no after-life. If I really wanted to, I could believe that after I die I'll have all the woman I'd ever want wherever and whenever and love it. If it makes my life easier then I'll be encourged to believe it, but some people are stubborn. For some, they negate all of that potential bliss in favor of just getting at the raw truth, regardless of its consequences. I picture a chicken in a slaughter pen that stubbornly resists the situation. Most chickens that do this will find themselves living a short life. I mean, how terrible of them to waste factory time! The rest will just live in bliss, believing whatever will ease the pain and shock. Really, what sense is there in resisting? If the chicken has no hope of escaping or resolving the circumstances then it's a dumb chicken, right? There's that serenity prayer: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. But then again, to each his own, eh? We'll all die anyway.

reply to post by sidLives

Originally posted by sidLives
... I think this thread was about the question if FREEWILL exists or not, right?
I think it does, it existed before Christianity or any other religion, it's part of every life form.

How do you know this? Can you show us that the will of any being is free? And if you can, can you show that all of our actions or at least most of them are actually "FREE" will (taking action independent of life circumstances and learned behaviors) as opposed to just being "WILL" (a consequence of life - learned through life experiences and learned perspectives)?

Originally posted by sidLives

I'm sorry for the ones who have doubts about it.

let's try harder to
DENY IGNORANCE

It makes sense to doubt free-will based on the lack of evidence, just like it makes sense to doubt Zeus is in the sky making thunder based on the lack of evidence. Let us try harder to deny ignorance. I agree.

reply to post by spinalremain

Originally posted by spinalremain
You are in fact free to do whatever you choose. You can either wake up or sleep another hour. That too is free will.

No. The body wakes up when it does. If I fall asleep, the body will wake up later at it's own time. I don't have free-will to just stop the dream and hop up awake from the dream whenever I feel like it. It just doesn't happen like that (for me).

Even if I could control my sleeping ours, that would be my "WILL" but it doesn't show that it is free. That is something from my learned behaviors and life experiences that caused me to control my sleeping hours...

reply to post by vasaga




This guy makes your bouncy rock man look quite looney.



Or what about sam harris... he obviously doesnt understand the argument either... Well aparantly anyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand the argument.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Dennett's argument is fallacious... He's using equivocation with the word 'inevitable', combined with a Red Herring. He's talking about avoiding rocks, ignoring that the argument is not about avoiding rocks, but rather that the only possible outcome is that the rock would be avoided in such a specific situation. I don't expect you to understand. But, I'm glad to see you admit that you look at how something looks, rather than listening to the argument. It has become obvious that you have no capacity for logical thinking, and that's really sad. You're a repeater and a follower.

Sam Harris: "The truth of free will is as certain a fact as the truth of evolution" And then says quietly 'in my mind'. LOL. Well, guess that says a lot since the level of truth regarding evolution is overrated... Calling something true does not make it true. Ah.. The two assumptions are untrue according to him.. I already see where this is going.. And then he goes on with a False Dichotomy. There's no reason to keep watching. He already went into fallacies...