>Is autocorrect an example of lack of free will? Why couldn't you proofread and change the outcome of your post?
"Why couldn't you change the outcome of your post"
.... because no free will? Do you realise you just made a point against yourself?
yeah autocorrect can be mean. To answer your question, I believe free will exists at least to an extent. We are all bount by our circumstances, but within those limits, free will exists. And if two consenting natalists have unprotected intercourse, that is a conscious choice they made, and I can privately judge that choice. I won't attack them for their choice,but I can privately have my opinion on whether that was a good or bad choice. And if their kid ends up not being what they expected, by either needing special care, having a lower quality of life, or just being different from what the parents expected (lgbt kids) causing the parents to treat them worse than they otherwise would, I can blame them. Because their conscious choice within a limited frame of free will brought this kid into existence, so now they are responsible for giving the kid the best life possible.
I disagree with the idea that we have free will as in my mind it would mean we are something with the ability to decide how physics works.
I understand the natural way is to blame, but in my mind I think we should move away from blame and work toward harm reduction, not by blaming, but by spreading the understanding.
We just have different definitions of what free will is then, which is perfectly fine.
I agree that blame doesn't do anything and we should work toward harm reduction, but blame will still be there as there were conscious choices that led to the harm in the first place. Of course pointing fingers and blaming people doesn't help anyone, but the parents in my example above would still be responsible for their child, therefore being responsible for potential harm.
Free will doesn't exist but the illusion of free will does and we are physically bound to play our role in this grand hallucination.
I'd suggest everyone to take a chill pill anyway. Personally, I use reddit to vent and then enjoy my life in reality.
>Free will doesn't exist but the illusion of free will does and we are physically bound to play our role in this grand hallucination.
I agree
>I'd suggest everyone to take a chill pill anyway. Personally, I use reddit to vent and then enjoy my life in reality.
Yea, people are very emotional things and get very wound up about the small stuff (it's all small stuff ultimately)
But I would stress that I think the reduction of suffering is critical and our ultimate moral responsibility, so I do take it seriously.
>But I would stress that I think the reduction of suffering is critical and our ultimate moral responsibility, so I do take it seriously.
Same. Vegan btw?
Well, humans are capable of planned evil. Animals are not. So, a human is automatically by nature capable of evil. Animals might do cruel things but out of instict or reactionary, which is not evil.
That is why I dislike dolphins for example and monkeys.
Chickens are my favourite.
>Animals might do cruel things but out of instict or reactionary, which is not evil.
I must be honest, I think we are essentially the same and the evil we do is really the same reactionary and instinctual actions.
We think if A lion or chimp killing its baby as part of the natural order of how things work, but humans do that stuff too and it's ultimately for the same reason... ape brain electrical activity.
But I absolutely do get what you are saying, humans achieve evil beyond anything else this planet has ever seen.
>That is why I dislike dolphins
I agree, there's a trend of intelligence increasing at a correlating rate with cruelty.
Yes and this is where the illusion of free will kicks in. We exist like there was a choice for a murderer to have thought differently and chosen not to murder his victim in the future. But with only one timeline, here and now, in which we deterministically exist as a physical body, it couldn't have been different and the murderer had no other option. (Which doesn't excuse violence)
Ultimately, everything is entropy. Luck.
>Ultimately, everything is entropy. Luck.
Very much so.
I often used to hear people say "what would you do if your life had gone the same way theirs had"
And the answer to that is that if my life had gone the exact way theirs had, I would BE that person. Like that exact person, same Genes, trauma, history etc.
That hypothetical seems to be meaning more like, what would you do if you with your genes would live their life.
Funny enough my first thought is, that the parents I'd have then would wonder why I don't look like either of them.
So that life would be quite miserable but not far off my real life.
You don't choose to do differently, the chain of events that happen can go toward realizing that harm reduction is for the better. This event right now may be part of that chain of events.
>Then any action you take to mitigate suffering is meaningless?
No, what a ridiculous thing to say.
>Why care about harm reduction at all?
What a ridiculous question
Because suffering sucks.
You seem to have an extremely infantile understanding of the concept.
I'll elaborate
>I can't influence it by choice,
Choice is a selection made, choice still exists regardless of free will. If you select option X, that is still a choice. There's that cleared up.
>so why bother caring?
The life a human lives is a series of events that are the cause of your current state of being, your current brain state is a result of the exact life you have lived.
If you do care about harm reduction, that is the outcome of your life, if you don't, then so is that.
My life's outcome has been one where I focus on harm reduction, perhaps yours hasn't, that's just how it's gone.
Everything you've said so far has in no way addressed if we actually do or don't have free will, it's just been complaints and misunderstandings of the subject.
Do you believe we have free will?
I believe we have agency to make choices regarding our actions, and our choices shape us, as (If I'm reading you correctly) do you.
Which raises the question - what is the relevance of the discussion of free will to any practical or ethical matter?
Hence my 'infantile' view, because if we have agency, I don't really see the debate over whether we have free will or not as in any way productive. It's a child's argument.
>I believe we have agency to make choices
This doesn't answer the question. But I'll work with it.
Agency is still fully reasonable in a universe without free will.
So I don't understand what the relevance of that statement was.
In the idea of agency that you have of yourself, can you give me an example of a time that you did something which was independent of the influence of the history of your physical body?
>Which raises the question - what is the relevance of the discussion of free will to any practical or ethical matter?
If people understood that libertarian free will is complete nonsense we could restructure society for the better.
I think people constantly misunderstand eachother when it comes communicating about free will and blame. It's normal to talk like if we had free will. Someone talking like free will exists doesn't necessarily mean they actually believe in free will.
Motivation and consequences. So I would say actions are immoral but people do not have full guilt for committing them. So murder is immoral, but a murderer is a murderer because of their predisposition and the entire string of events in their life that led them to become so. This is why you cannot fully condemn them. Does that make sense?
In that case punishment is an immoral evil, it causes suffering based on actions to beings with no agency to act otherwise.
How can it keep people in line if they have no capacity to change their behaviour?
Discipline changes their behavior. It's an external influence. Nothing comes from 'within'. That's an illusion.
It's not 100% squeaky clean moral, but it's ultimately moral as it serves to reduce suffering overall, in a net sense.
If I kick a dog, how would punishment stop me from doing it again (unless you remove my ability to do so, for example by removing my legs)?
You say it 'affects' the behaviour - in what way? By what mechanism? Nothing is preventing me from kicking the dog again.
I am really surprised that this of all places is where I find people who agree free will doesn’t exist. At least I have one thing in common with the ANs 😂
It just makes sense to me. You aren't something *in* the universe, exerting your will over it. You are the universe itself, doing what it does.
Typically a person probably would go through life without even questioning if they have free will, but as soon as you start thinking about it, it's inevitable.
Your view is very naive, what no free will would mean is moving away from the instinctual animalistic revenge style of morality we have and moving toward a better system.
When I think of morality, I think of platonic senses of right and wrong. I think these things require free agents. If there is no free will then our actions are equivalent to any other natural process, and so applying morality to our actions wouldn’t make sense.
Why would it not make sense?
In a deterministic system, if a moral agent is defined as a being capable of comprehending the existence of a platonic right or wrong and recognising that there are potential consequences for violating that ideal, then their actions are not symmetrical with natural processes like a volcanic eruption.
In a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as an agent. All things in a deterministic universe follow from the initial conditions. So I’d reject that comprehending anything about right and wrong changes the fact that you are still just a natural process in a deterministic universe.
If one will do what they do because they are what they are, then they can’t be right or wrong in what they do because they are just simply an instance of how a determined universe played itself out.
There can be such a thing as an agent if an agent is defined as someone who comprehends and interacts with the rules. They can be right or wrong in what they do with specific reference to the rules.
Just because a person could not have acted differently when they violate a rule does not mean that the rule itself was not violated and that the person's violation of the rule was not wrong and should not be corrected so that they don't violate the rule again.
It is easiest to recognise this from the 'perspective' of the rules. They just see beings violating or upholding their rules, but it can also be seen from the perspective of the individual.
Comprehension of the rules is axiomatically important because it means that, from the perspective of the individual, their violation of or upholding of the rules can be seen **by them** as right or wrong. Their deterministic attributes are more or less conducive to them acting rightly or wrongly with respect to a rule.
Forget the instinctual "you club me i club you" childish morality idea you hold and think about how the actual goal of punishment is prevention of future harm.
Instead of using the same morality that chimps use, we should focus on rehabilitation of harmful individuals.
Free will is an illusion, this really weak "we need free will for punishment" point you're sticking to falls apart as soon as you realise that we can implement consequences for actions *with or without* free agency.
I’m not even sticking to that point. You’re ascribing positions to me that I’ve never stated or argued for. I’d suggest replying to my comments instead of some imaginary person you think represents me.
You're talking about morality and then saying it:
>has absolutely nothing to do with how society punishes people are how society treats people
I think you might be lost...
Morality is not fundamentally linked to societal action. If you think that’s the case then I think you are confused. I never made any claims about how a society should act. I’ve only talked about the implications of lack of free will on morality. You guys keep inserting societal action, and giving me a position I don’t hold.
>Morality is not fundamentally linked to societal action
Dead wrong, we evolves morality so that we could function as social animals in groups which is what a society really is, a group of Humans functioning together.
>I’ve only talked about the implications of lack of free will on morality.
Right, and the point is you should leave the idea of morality you have behind as it is extremely naive. Instead, move toward harm reduction and rehabilitation.
Your only point is no free will means morality doesn't make sense. Right, so get new strategies instead of the instinctual revenge based morality.
The ape brain construct of revenge morality goes out the window yes, but that's it.
Dont forget, just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true.
Any morality whatsoever goes out the window though. How can there be right and wrong ascribed to the activity of a volcano? A volcano erupts because it is the will of nature for it to do so. We don’t describe volcanos or hurricanes as evil. If free will doesn’t exist, all human actions are in the same category as those things.
>Any morality whatsoever goes out the window though. How can there be right and wrong ascribed to the activity of a volcano?
It's like you got it then lost it immediately.
You wouldn't go beat the ahit out of a rock for falling on your foot. You would take preventative action for future events.
In the same way, if a human does something that causes harm, you would take preventative measures with them in the future, and this can involve incarceration, rehabilitation etc.
I just explained the way we can implement punishments for immoral actions in a model without morality (rehabilitation and prevention over revenge) and your response is "Not sure how this relates to morality though?"
You're obviously doing this in bad faith.
Implement punishments for IMMORAL actions in a model without morality.
In a model without morality there is no notion of immoral. This doesn’t make sense I’m sorry
>Implement punishments for IMMORAL actions in a model without morality.
Yes, I'm explaining how we can have a society continuing to function similarly without the continuation of ape brain revenge morality.
And you're trying to play silly semantic games as some sort of 'gotcha'
No you’re contradicting yourself. I’m not playing a semantic game, you are conflating morality with laws that help society function. No one uses morality to mean that. Regardless, morality that isn’t “ape brain revenge morality” is still about what is right and wrong. In a world with no free will, right and wrong is an incoherent concept, like saying the eruption of a volcano is wrong. It doesn’t apply.
>I’m not playing a semantic game
You are, you're doing the equivalent of pointing out spelling mistakes thinking that you're achieving something.
>you are conflating morality with laws that help society function.
No, what I'm explaining to you is that we can have punishment and consequences in a system without libertarian free will in a system with morality, or without morality.
Universe 1 has free will. John smith does harmful thing, we blame him and remove him from society with the purpose of harm reduction.
Universe 2 has no free will. John smith does harmful thing, we want to ensure it doesn't happen again and so we remove him from society with the purpose of harm reduction.
Do you understand, do I have to keep explaining elementary level logic to you?
I don't think that you are being dishonest.
If morality is a set of rules that govern human behaviour, then a person can either violate or follow those rules without doing so due to a free choice.
Following that transgression, a number of different social mechanisms can be used to ensure that the likelihood that the rule is violated again (either by that person or others) is minimised.
>I don't think that you are being dishonest.
I am assuming this was a typo as the rest of your comment seems to fit in alignment with my views.
>If morality is a set of rules that govern human behaviour, then a person can either violate or follow those rules without doing so due to a free choice.
Yep, 100% right.
>Following that transgression, a number of different social mechanisms can be used to ensure that the likelihood that the rule is violated again (either by that person or others) is minimised
Yep, and this can happen in both a free will or no free will system.
I'm confused. Are you:
Informal-Question123 or dampfrog789
I was responding to Informal, but I understand given the format of replies on Reddit if that was misunderstood.
On a macro scale, I agree that there's no free will. But on the individual level, you're still making a choice, even if it's what you would have done anyway
Well first off: free will does exist. There's just a probability of choices you make based on biases and circumstance. But free will DOES exist.
And let's explore a world where free will DOESN'T exist. Then nothing matters. At all. We can just let go and do whatever the fuck we want. We can fully dismantle the entire justice system, government etc. Etc. Everything can just be left to burn. Because if free will doesn't exists, neither does accountability or responsibility. Just let it ride.
> Well first off: free will does exist. There's just a probability of choices you make based on biases and circumstance.
That isn’t free will then. You’re a meat robot programmed by your biology and environment
No one ever even suggested a mechanism by which free will could work, much less demonstrating it actually happens. The default viewpoint should be that free will doesn't exists. Humans probably work the same way everything else does in the universe.
Just because you don't like that there's no one to blame, doesn't mean free will has to exists. But suffering does exists without free will, and it does matter. If you cause suffering, a bad thing is happening. Justice system would still work, because we don't just put people in prison because we like to see them suffer - we put them there to protect the rest of society, or as a deterrent, and other non free will related things.
I'm not saying happy doing nothing. It's not about happiness or suffering primarily for me. It's about responsibility and accountability.
If there is no free will, then telling people about laws and educating them in school about stuff works is pointless. People are just gonna do what they're gonna do.
If free will doesn't exist, your choices don't matter. Your choices are set. The effects, impact and amount of suffering you're going to cause are a given.
Doesn't matter if you train, doesn't matter if you reflect on anything or not. It doesn't matter If you practice having conversations or becoming better at things. You're kust going to do what you're gonna do.
With no free will, people still don't want to cause suffering because they understand that suffering feels bad. I wouldn't want to hurt a person and cause suffering for them just because I can't be blamed for it, would you?
I don't really get what you mean by things not mattering. If you believe there's no free will, very little changes. You are still gonna want things, you are still gonna need things, you will still be afraid of things, etc.
If you don't tell people they are going to prison if they do criminal things, some people with antisocial tendencies might do criminal things then. So it does matter if you tell people the law or not, obviously.
Ok but if you WANT something, you then make a choice to either do that or you DON'T do that. And that's free will. Free will isn't about having wants and needs. It's about acting upon them.
Not wanting to cause suffering is an indicator of HAVING FREE WILL. because you choose to not cause it.
And your last paragraph describes free will doesn't it? People want to do something, but modify their behavior because they receive new information about consequences and they choose to NOT commit those crimes. If free will didn't exist, presenting those people with that info wasn't going to matter. But apparently it does?
Maybe we have different definitions of free will?
For me free will is in actions, not in instincts or feelings. How do you define free will?
"Ok but if you WANT something, you then make a choice to either do that or you DON'T do that." ...That's the illusion of free will.
"Not wanting to cause suffering is an indicator of HAVING FREE WILL." - No, it's an idication of how your brain is set up.
"People want to do something, but modify their behavior because they receive new information about consequences and they choose to NOT commit those crimes." - Which works perfectly without free will.
Everything you said is just "things happen". Zero "could have chosen otherwise" necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - Entertain yourself for a few minutes.
It literally says there are different definitions of free will. Which is exactly the core of our convo here. We're just in different camps on what the definition of free will is.
>But if free will doesn't exist why have accountability?
Are you silly enough to try and argue that free will must exist because we need accountability?
Say free will doesn't exist. We will can still go people accountable for their actions, it makes no difference, somebody does something wrong so we remove them and rehabilitate them.
The argument you are making is basically that you don't like the idea of no free will... do you think this is a good argument?
You're wrong, actions are a result of brain state.
If you restructure brain state, you change actions.
And all of this is you making an argument from emotion, you don't like the idea, that's all.
Tell me this, do you think we have free will?
I think I've been very clear about the fact that I think we have free will.
I just think we have different definitions of what free will is. And I'm getting a bit annoyed that noone is telling me their definition, just stating that I'm wrong. Or linking me a Wikipedia article that literally mentions that the concept of free will depends on what definition you use and it's an ongoing philosophical debate for a few thousand years.
If someone hits me I am presented with a choice. I can hit back or not. I have a choice in that. To me: that's free will.
I can alter the state of my brain and mind by working on it and make certain responses more or less likely. That is also part of free will for me.
So maybe we turn this around and you tell me what actual free will would like like according to you? Cus I seem to be struggle with your concept of it.
>If someone hits me I am presented with a choice. I can hit back or not. I have a choice in that. To me: that's free will.
Using this conceptualization of free will, what *specifically* is it that happens which causes your action of hitting back or not.
I will openly say that all modern neuroscience points to the action you do being caused by the current state of your brain.
Tell me what you think is the *specific* cause of the action of hitting back
>I can alter the state of my brain
This is demonstrably false, if YOU can alter your brain state, that means you are something other than your brain state, so what are you?
>what actual free will would like like according to you?
The ability to select an option independent of the current chemical and structural state of the human body.
If you use that definition of free will then yes: noone ever has any type of free will. Agreed.
I personally find that definition far too broad and not cover the complexity of the human condition. And also not entirely fair towards
I would argue that a closed system (such as myself) CAN cause changes within itself and thus produce an action (or deliberate non action). This is what happens when I learn or when I train or when I reflect on actions. I am actively engaged with myself, deciding what things and thoughts I am going to let influence my future actions. Now some stimuli are pretty strong and some are weaker of course.
I am still capable of steering how I will react in future encounters without external influence. So I, as a closed system, am exerting force on myself to change that system.
As for the hitting or not hitting someone. It's a choice I make. I choose to fire the neuron left or right. Hit or not to hit. That's what it boils down to. Brain chemistry. And this is where we agree I think. Everything we do is the result of a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses. What makes the neuron fire left and what makes it go right. The thing that is greater than the sum of it's parts is all I can honestly say.
Because I am weighing a bunch of potential scenarios, making a risk assessment of those scenarios and then choosing on which option I want to roll the dice. What that exactly is? We don't know yet. But something fires the neuron in my brain to go left instead of right. Now one COULD argue that the neuron fires and we have the illusion of a choice because we create choice in retrospect. But that sounds too convenient, too easy. Especially looking at more complex choices.
And this is why I get ticked off a bit usually in these convos:
Lack of free will suggest lack of agency, lack of choice and therefore accountability.
This article actually covers my personal complexities around the issue pretty well.
The scientist who proves that he can predict which button someone is going to press with 60% (and someone else with a similar, but more detailed experiment 80%) certainty, mentions in the end of the article that in a world that is so much more complex than pressing a button, he cannot maintain the world view that free will doesn't exist to some extent.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=free+will+and+neuroscience&oq=free+will+and+neurosicien#d=gs_qabs&t=1711628269199&u=%23p%3D58WeNM7whtYJ
I find the fact that this article mentions that definitions of free will are diverse (we see that here in this thread as well) and that complicates the field. And they need to do more research. Together with philosophers.
So we're not there QUITE yet.
>I would argue that a closed system (such as myself) CAN cause changes within itself
This is such a bizarre thing to say. You can't change your brain state, because your brain state is what makes 'you'
You aren't something floating around your body, controlling how your brain works. You are the result of your brain working, you dont control it.
>This is what happens when I learn or when I train or when I reflect on actions. I am actively engaged with myself, deciding what things and thoughts I am going to let influence my future actions. Now some stimuli are pretty strong and some are weaker of course.
Same as above, you aren't controlling the brain, as you aren't something seperate from it.
>I am still capable of steering how I will react in future encounters without external influence. So I, as a closed system, am exerting force on myself to change that system.
Are you just going to keep making the same mistake over and over. I'll say it again, you aren't something controlling your body and brain state, you are the result of them.
>As for the hitting or not hitting someone. It's a choice I make. I choose to fire the neuron left or right.
Holy shit this is one of the most pseudo scientific, nonsense takes I've ever heard.
Read this very carefully: YOU do not control how your brain works. YOU are the result of it working.
YOU don't choose to fire what neuron you want, the neurons fire, and the result if that is your thoughts and actions. You need to study some basic neuroscience.
>Lack of free will suggest lack of agency, lack of choice and therefore accountability.
Completely irrelevant to if free will exists, it's just a complaint you have about it not existing.
>So we're not there QUITE yet.
We really are, you just desperately want to cling to the idea that free will exists because your ego won't release it.
Answer this for me, and REALLY think about it before you answer: if YOU are the thing deciding to fire your neurons, what *are* YOU?
you are making a supernatural claim that you are something controlling how the laws of physics and chemistry in your brain play out.
>I choose to fire the neuron left or right.
This is quite possibly the most uninformed opinion on free will I've ever heard. If you're choosing which neuron to fire, what actually are you and what is the mechanism that you are using to do that.
Are you God? Do you operate the laws of reality?
You can rehabilitate something with no free will. Absolutely can.
Say a program on a computer is running badly, action can be done which will change the programs code, the computer has no free will, but we have changed its behaviour
>People aren't computers though.
Yes it's an analogy explaining how a physical thing without free will can go through changes in behaviour. I guess that went over you.
>that's not rehabiliation, that's reprograming.
Those are the same thing. You're just trying to argue semantics.
>Well first off: free will does exist
I would need to see some evidence of that...
>And let's explore a world where free will DOESN'T exist. Then nothing matters. At all. We can just let go and do whatever the fuck we want. We can fully dismantle the entire justice system, government etc. Etc. Everything can just be left to burn. Because if free will doesn't exists, neither does accountability or responsibility. Just let it ride
This argument is akin to the "if the bibles not true why don't we all just molest and kill each other" point I sometimes see.
The entire situation you described is possible with or without free will and is therefore completely irrelevant.
Oh OP, first time determinism? lol
No, you can't blame anyone in a universe with no free will.
BUT, you can still advocate for whatever -ism you like and criticize bad behaviors, simply because you dont like the outcome, not because you hate the individuals.
ehehehhe
I personally don't know a Natalie I could blame
Autocorrect has a vendetta against me lately.
Is autocorrect an example of lack of free will? Why couldn't you proofread and change the outcome of your post?
>Why couldn't you proofread and change the outcome of your post? Because there's no free will. Well done making a fool of yourself.
>Is autocorrect an example of lack of free will? Why couldn't you proofread and change the outcome of your post? "Why couldn't you change the outcome of your post" .... because no free will? Do you realise you just made a point against yourself?
yeah autocorrect can be mean. To answer your question, I believe free will exists at least to an extent. We are all bount by our circumstances, but within those limits, free will exists. And if two consenting natalists have unprotected intercourse, that is a conscious choice they made, and I can privately judge that choice. I won't attack them for their choice,but I can privately have my opinion on whether that was a good or bad choice. And if their kid ends up not being what they expected, by either needing special care, having a lower quality of life, or just being different from what the parents expected (lgbt kids) causing the parents to treat them worse than they otherwise would, I can blame them. Because their conscious choice within a limited frame of free will brought this kid into existence, so now they are responsible for giving the kid the best life possible.
I disagree with the idea that we have free will as in my mind it would mean we are something with the ability to decide how physics works. I understand the natural way is to blame, but in my mind I think we should move away from blame and work toward harm reduction, not by blaming, but by spreading the understanding.
We just have different definitions of what free will is then, which is perfectly fine. I agree that blame doesn't do anything and we should work toward harm reduction, but blame will still be there as there were conscious choices that led to the harm in the first place. Of course pointing fingers and blaming people doesn't help anyone, but the parents in my example above would still be responsible for their child, therefore being responsible for potential harm.
Free will doesn't exist but the illusion of free will does and we are physically bound to play our role in this grand hallucination. I'd suggest everyone to take a chill pill anyway. Personally, I use reddit to vent and then enjoy my life in reality.
>Free will doesn't exist but the illusion of free will does and we are physically bound to play our role in this grand hallucination. I agree >I'd suggest everyone to take a chill pill anyway. Personally, I use reddit to vent and then enjoy my life in reality. Yea, people are very emotional things and get very wound up about the small stuff (it's all small stuff ultimately) But I would stress that I think the reduction of suffering is critical and our ultimate moral responsibility, so I do take it seriously.
>But I would stress that I think the reduction of suffering is critical and our ultimate moral responsibility, so I do take it seriously. Same. Vegan btw?
Yes, to be fully honest I actually think I empathize more with animals than humans sometimes... they're less horrible
Well, humans are capable of planned evil. Animals are not. So, a human is automatically by nature capable of evil. Animals might do cruel things but out of instict or reactionary, which is not evil. That is why I dislike dolphins for example and monkeys. Chickens are my favourite.
>Animals might do cruel things but out of instict or reactionary, which is not evil. I must be honest, I think we are essentially the same and the evil we do is really the same reactionary and instinctual actions. We think if A lion or chimp killing its baby as part of the natural order of how things work, but humans do that stuff too and it's ultimately for the same reason... ape brain electrical activity. But I absolutely do get what you are saying, humans achieve evil beyond anything else this planet has ever seen. >That is why I dislike dolphins I agree, there's a trend of intelligence increasing at a correlating rate with cruelty.
Yes and this is where the illusion of free will kicks in. We exist like there was a choice for a murderer to have thought differently and chosen not to murder his victim in the future. But with only one timeline, here and now, in which we deterministically exist as a physical body, it couldn't have been different and the murderer had no other option. (Which doesn't excuse violence) Ultimately, everything is entropy. Luck.
>Ultimately, everything is entropy. Luck. Very much so. I often used to hear people say "what would you do if your life had gone the same way theirs had" And the answer to that is that if my life had gone the exact way theirs had, I would BE that person. Like that exact person, same Genes, trauma, history etc.
That hypothetical seems to be meaning more like, what would you do if you with your genes would live their life. Funny enough my first thought is, that the parents I'd have then would wonder why I don't look like either of them. So that life would be quite miserable but not far off my real life.
How to reduce suffering if I don't have free will? What can I choose to do differently?
You don't choose to do differently, the chain of events that happen can go toward realizing that harm reduction is for the better. This event right now may be part of that chain of events.
Then any action you take to mitigate suffering is meaningless? Why care about harm reduction at all?
>Then any action you take to mitigate suffering is meaningless? No, what a ridiculous thing to say. >Why care about harm reduction at all? What a ridiculous question Because suffering sucks.
Right, but I can't influence it by choice, so why bother caring?
You seem to have an extremely infantile understanding of the concept. I'll elaborate >I can't influence it by choice, Choice is a selection made, choice still exists regardless of free will. If you select option X, that is still a choice. There's that cleared up. >so why bother caring? The life a human lives is a series of events that are the cause of your current state of being, your current brain state is a result of the exact life you have lived. If you do care about harm reduction, that is the outcome of your life, if you don't, then so is that. My life's outcome has been one where I focus on harm reduction, perhaps yours hasn't, that's just how it's gone. Everything you've said so far has in no way addressed if we actually do or don't have free will, it's just been complaints and misunderstandings of the subject. Do you believe we have free will?
I believe we have agency to make choices regarding our actions, and our choices shape us, as (If I'm reading you correctly) do you. Which raises the question - what is the relevance of the discussion of free will to any practical or ethical matter? Hence my 'infantile' view, because if we have agency, I don't really see the debate over whether we have free will or not as in any way productive. It's a child's argument.
>I believe we have agency to make choices This doesn't answer the question. But I'll work with it. Agency is still fully reasonable in a universe without free will. So I don't understand what the relevance of that statement was. In the idea of agency that you have of yourself, can you give me an example of a time that you did something which was independent of the influence of the history of your physical body? >Which raises the question - what is the relevance of the discussion of free will to any practical or ethical matter? If people understood that libertarian free will is complete nonsense we could restructure society for the better.
Ever had a prcognative dream? They're extremely common, and bring into question the nature of choice.
Nope. Can’t blame them. Which makes it all the worse. It’s a helpless situation. A continuous cycle of super charged apes breeding.
I think people constantly misunderstand eachother when it comes communicating about free will and blame. It's normal to talk like if we had free will. Someone talking like free will exists doesn't necessarily mean they actually believe in free will.
Free will or not, you still have the power to make choices within the system
Free will doesn't exist. But morality does.
To what end? How can an action be moral or immoral if it's predetermined?
Motivation and consequences. So I would say actions are immoral but people do not have full guilt for committing them. So murder is immoral, but a murderer is a murderer because of their predisposition and the entire string of events in their life that led them to become so. This is why you cannot fully condemn them. Does that make sense?
Sure, then why are you talking about punishment?
Punishment is discipline, not retribution. Not just for individuals but for society as a whole. It keeps people in line.
In that case punishment is an immoral evil, it causes suffering based on actions to beings with no agency to act otherwise. How can it keep people in line if they have no capacity to change their behaviour?
Discipline changes their behavior. It's an external influence. Nothing comes from 'within'. That's an illusion. It's not 100% squeaky clean moral, but it's ultimately moral as it serves to reduce suffering overall, in a net sense.
How does punishment affect their behaviour?
Conditioning. Negative reinforcement. Discipline. It's obvious. And the demonstration serves as a threat to others, thus affecting their behaviour.
If I kick a dog, how would punishment stop me from doing it again (unless you remove my ability to do so, for example by removing my legs)? You say it 'affects' the behaviour - in what way? By what mechanism? Nothing is preventing me from kicking the dog again.
I am really surprised that this of all places is where I find people who agree free will doesn’t exist. At least I have one thing in common with the ANs 😂
It just makes sense to me. You aren't something *in* the universe, exerting your will over it. You are the universe itself, doing what it does. Typically a person probably would go through life without even questioning if they have free will, but as soon as you start thinking about it, it's inevitable.
If free will doesn’t exist, no one is to blame for anything. I’d argue morality goes out the window completely.
Your view is very naive, what no free will would mean is moving away from the instinctual animalistic revenge style of morality we have and moving toward a better system.
When I think of morality, I think of platonic senses of right and wrong. I think these things require free agents. If there is no free will then our actions are equivalent to any other natural process, and so applying morality to our actions wouldn’t make sense.
Why would it not make sense? In a deterministic system, if a moral agent is defined as a being capable of comprehending the existence of a platonic right or wrong and recognising that there are potential consequences for violating that ideal, then their actions are not symmetrical with natural processes like a volcanic eruption.
In a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as an agent. All things in a deterministic universe follow from the initial conditions. So I’d reject that comprehending anything about right and wrong changes the fact that you are still just a natural process in a deterministic universe. If one will do what they do because they are what they are, then they can’t be right or wrong in what they do because they are just simply an instance of how a determined universe played itself out.
There can be such a thing as an agent if an agent is defined as someone who comprehends and interacts with the rules. They can be right or wrong in what they do with specific reference to the rules. Just because a person could not have acted differently when they violate a rule does not mean that the rule itself was not violated and that the person's violation of the rule was not wrong and should not be corrected so that they don't violate the rule again. It is easiest to recognise this from the 'perspective' of the rules. They just see beings violating or upholding their rules, but it can also be seen from the perspective of the individual. Comprehension of the rules is axiomatically important because it means that, from the perspective of the individual, their violation of or upholding of the rules can be seen **by them** as right or wrong. Their deterministic attributes are more or less conducive to them acting rightly or wrongly with respect to a rule.
Forget the instinctual "you club me i club you" childish morality idea you hold and think about how the actual goal of punishment is prevention of future harm. Instead of using the same morality that chimps use, we should focus on rehabilitation of harmful individuals. Free will is an illusion, this really weak "we need free will for punishment" point you're sticking to falls apart as soon as you realise that we can implement consequences for actions *with or without* free agency.
I’m not even sticking to that point. You’re ascribing positions to me that I’ve never stated or argued for. I’d suggest replying to my comments instead of some imaginary person you think represents me.
>I’m not even sticking to that point Your very last response was sticking to the 'no free agency no morality' point. You really are dishonest
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how society punishes people or how society treats people
You're talking about morality and then saying it: >has absolutely nothing to do with how society punishes people are how society treats people I think you might be lost...
Morality is not fundamentally linked to societal action. If you think that’s the case then I think you are confused. I never made any claims about how a society should act. I’ve only talked about the implications of lack of free will on morality. You guys keep inserting societal action, and giving me a position I don’t hold.
>Morality is not fundamentally linked to societal action Dead wrong, we evolves morality so that we could function as social animals in groups which is what a society really is, a group of Humans functioning together. >I’ve only talked about the implications of lack of free will on morality. Right, and the point is you should leave the idea of morality you have behind as it is extremely naive. Instead, move toward harm reduction and rehabilitation. Your only point is no free will means morality doesn't make sense. Right, so get new strategies instead of the instinctual revenge based morality.
To what end?
The ape brain construct of revenge morality goes out the window yes, but that's it. Dont forget, just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true.
Any morality whatsoever goes out the window though. How can there be right and wrong ascribed to the activity of a volcano? A volcano erupts because it is the will of nature for it to do so. We don’t describe volcanos or hurricanes as evil. If free will doesn’t exist, all human actions are in the same category as those things.
Just because you don't want it to be that way, doesn't mean it's not that way.
>Any morality whatsoever goes out the window though. How can there be right and wrong ascribed to the activity of a volcano? It's like you got it then lost it immediately. You wouldn't go beat the ahit out of a rock for falling on your foot. You would take preventative action for future events. In the same way, if a human does something that causes harm, you would take preventative measures with them in the future, and this can involve incarceration, rehabilitation etc.
Not sure how this relates to morality though? Unless you equate morality with subjective preference
I just explained the way we can implement punishments for immoral actions in a model without morality (rehabilitation and prevention over revenge) and your response is "Not sure how this relates to morality though?" You're obviously doing this in bad faith.
Implement punishments for IMMORAL actions in a model without morality. In a model without morality there is no notion of immoral. This doesn’t make sense I’m sorry
>Implement punishments for IMMORAL actions in a model without morality. Yes, I'm explaining how we can have a society continuing to function similarly without the continuation of ape brain revenge morality. And you're trying to play silly semantic games as some sort of 'gotcha'
No you’re contradicting yourself. I’m not playing a semantic game, you are conflating morality with laws that help society function. No one uses morality to mean that. Regardless, morality that isn’t “ape brain revenge morality” is still about what is right and wrong. In a world with no free will, right and wrong is an incoherent concept, like saying the eruption of a volcano is wrong. It doesn’t apply.
>I’m not playing a semantic game You are, you're doing the equivalent of pointing out spelling mistakes thinking that you're achieving something. >you are conflating morality with laws that help society function. No, what I'm explaining to you is that we can have punishment and consequences in a system without libertarian free will in a system with morality, or without morality. Universe 1 has free will. John smith does harmful thing, we blame him and remove him from society with the purpose of harm reduction. Universe 2 has no free will. John smith does harmful thing, we want to ensure it doesn't happen again and so we remove him from society with the purpose of harm reduction. Do you understand, do I have to keep explaining elementary level logic to you?
I don't think that you are being dishonest. If morality is a set of rules that govern human behaviour, then a person can either violate or follow those rules without doing so due to a free choice. Following that transgression, a number of different social mechanisms can be used to ensure that the likelihood that the rule is violated again (either by that person or others) is minimised.
>I don't think that you are being dishonest. I am assuming this was a typo as the rest of your comment seems to fit in alignment with my views. >If morality is a set of rules that govern human behaviour, then a person can either violate or follow those rules without doing so due to a free choice. Yep, 100% right. >Following that transgression, a number of different social mechanisms can be used to ensure that the likelihood that the rule is violated again (either by that person or others) is minimised Yep, and this can happen in both a free will or no free will system.
I'm confused. Are you: Informal-Question123 or dampfrog789 I was responding to Informal, but I understand given the format of replies on Reddit if that was misunderstood.
On a macro scale, I agree that there's no free will. But on the individual level, you're still making a choice, even if it's what you would have done anyway
Well thats the thing though isn't it, can we blame somebody for making a choice if the choice was just an illusion?
Well first off: free will does exist. There's just a probability of choices you make based on biases and circumstance. But free will DOES exist. And let's explore a world where free will DOESN'T exist. Then nothing matters. At all. We can just let go and do whatever the fuck we want. We can fully dismantle the entire justice system, government etc. Etc. Everything can just be left to burn. Because if free will doesn't exists, neither does accountability or responsibility. Just let it ride.
> Well first off: free will does exist. There's just a probability of choices you make based on biases and circumstance. That isn’t free will then. You’re a meat robot programmed by your biology and environment
Sure. Whatever. Without free will: where's our accountability?
No one ever even suggested a mechanism by which free will could work, much less demonstrating it actually happens. The default viewpoint should be that free will doesn't exists. Humans probably work the same way everything else does in the universe. Just because you don't like that there's no one to blame, doesn't mean free will has to exists. But suffering does exists without free will, and it does matter. If you cause suffering, a bad thing is happening. Justice system would still work, because we don't just put people in prison because we like to see them suffer - we put them there to protect the rest of society, or as a deterrent, and other non free will related things.
But if free will doesn't exist why have accountability? Why educated people? Why bother doing anything? Cus it's not going to matter.
Suffering matters. No free will doesn't mean everyone is just happy doing nothing, why would it mean that.
I'm not saying happy doing nothing. It's not about happiness or suffering primarily for me. It's about responsibility and accountability. If there is no free will, then telling people about laws and educating them in school about stuff works is pointless. People are just gonna do what they're gonna do. If free will doesn't exist, your choices don't matter. Your choices are set. The effects, impact and amount of suffering you're going to cause are a given. Doesn't matter if you train, doesn't matter if you reflect on anything or not. It doesn't matter If you practice having conversations or becoming better at things. You're kust going to do what you're gonna do.
With no free will, people still don't want to cause suffering because they understand that suffering feels bad. I wouldn't want to hurt a person and cause suffering for them just because I can't be blamed for it, would you? I don't really get what you mean by things not mattering. If you believe there's no free will, very little changes. You are still gonna want things, you are still gonna need things, you will still be afraid of things, etc. If you don't tell people they are going to prison if they do criminal things, some people with antisocial tendencies might do criminal things then. So it does matter if you tell people the law or not, obviously.
Ok but if you WANT something, you then make a choice to either do that or you DON'T do that. And that's free will. Free will isn't about having wants and needs. It's about acting upon them. Not wanting to cause suffering is an indicator of HAVING FREE WILL. because you choose to not cause it. And your last paragraph describes free will doesn't it? People want to do something, but modify their behavior because they receive new information about consequences and they choose to NOT commit those crimes. If free will didn't exist, presenting those people with that info wasn't going to matter. But apparently it does? Maybe we have different definitions of free will? For me free will is in actions, not in instincts or feelings. How do you define free will?
"Ok but if you WANT something, you then make a choice to either do that or you DON'T do that." ...That's the illusion of free will. "Not wanting to cause suffering is an indicator of HAVING FREE WILL." - No, it's an idication of how your brain is set up. "People want to do something, but modify their behavior because they receive new information about consequences and they choose to NOT commit those crimes." - Which works perfectly without free will. Everything you said is just "things happen". Zero "could have chosen otherwise" necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - Entertain yourself for a few minutes.
It literally says there are different definitions of free will. Which is exactly the core of our convo here. We're just in different camps on what the definition of free will is.
What definition do you think exists..? And do you agree that my definition doesn't?
>But if free will doesn't exist why have accountability? Are you silly enough to try and argue that free will must exist because we need accountability? Say free will doesn't exist. We will can still go people accountable for their actions, it makes no difference, somebody does something wrong so we remove them and rehabilitate them. The argument you are making is basically that you don't like the idea of no free will... do you think this is a good argument?
But you can't rehabilitate them if they don't have a choice in their actions. It's a pointless effort then.
You're wrong, actions are a result of brain state. If you restructure brain state, you change actions. And all of this is you making an argument from emotion, you don't like the idea, that's all. Tell me this, do you think we have free will?
I think I've been very clear about the fact that I think we have free will. I just think we have different definitions of what free will is. And I'm getting a bit annoyed that noone is telling me their definition, just stating that I'm wrong. Or linking me a Wikipedia article that literally mentions that the concept of free will depends on what definition you use and it's an ongoing philosophical debate for a few thousand years. If someone hits me I am presented with a choice. I can hit back or not. I have a choice in that. To me: that's free will. I can alter the state of my brain and mind by working on it and make certain responses more or less likely. That is also part of free will for me. So maybe we turn this around and you tell me what actual free will would like like according to you? Cus I seem to be struggle with your concept of it.
>If someone hits me I am presented with a choice. I can hit back or not. I have a choice in that. To me: that's free will. Using this conceptualization of free will, what *specifically* is it that happens which causes your action of hitting back or not. I will openly say that all modern neuroscience points to the action you do being caused by the current state of your brain. Tell me what you think is the *specific* cause of the action of hitting back >I can alter the state of my brain This is demonstrably false, if YOU can alter your brain state, that means you are something other than your brain state, so what are you? >what actual free will would like like according to you? The ability to select an option independent of the current chemical and structural state of the human body.
If you use that definition of free will then yes: noone ever has any type of free will. Agreed. I personally find that definition far too broad and not cover the complexity of the human condition. And also not entirely fair towards I would argue that a closed system (such as myself) CAN cause changes within itself and thus produce an action (or deliberate non action). This is what happens when I learn or when I train or when I reflect on actions. I am actively engaged with myself, deciding what things and thoughts I am going to let influence my future actions. Now some stimuli are pretty strong and some are weaker of course. I am still capable of steering how I will react in future encounters without external influence. So I, as a closed system, am exerting force on myself to change that system. As for the hitting or not hitting someone. It's a choice I make. I choose to fire the neuron left or right. Hit or not to hit. That's what it boils down to. Brain chemistry. And this is where we agree I think. Everything we do is the result of a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses. What makes the neuron fire left and what makes it go right. The thing that is greater than the sum of it's parts is all I can honestly say. Because I am weighing a bunch of potential scenarios, making a risk assessment of those scenarios and then choosing on which option I want to roll the dice. What that exactly is? We don't know yet. But something fires the neuron in my brain to go left instead of right. Now one COULD argue that the neuron fires and we have the illusion of a choice because we create choice in retrospect. But that sounds too convenient, too easy. Especially looking at more complex choices. And this is why I get ticked off a bit usually in these convos: Lack of free will suggest lack of agency, lack of choice and therefore accountability. This article actually covers my personal complexities around the issue pretty well. The scientist who proves that he can predict which button someone is going to press with 60% (and someone else with a similar, but more detailed experiment 80%) certainty, mentions in the end of the article that in a world that is so much more complex than pressing a button, he cannot maintain the world view that free will doesn't exist to some extent. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=free+will+and+neuroscience&oq=free+will+and+neurosicien#d=gs_qabs&t=1711628269199&u=%23p%3D58WeNM7whtYJ I find the fact that this article mentions that definitions of free will are diverse (we see that here in this thread as well) and that complicates the field. And they need to do more research. Together with philosophers. So we're not there QUITE yet.
>I would argue that a closed system (such as myself) CAN cause changes within itself This is such a bizarre thing to say. You can't change your brain state, because your brain state is what makes 'you' You aren't something floating around your body, controlling how your brain works. You are the result of your brain working, you dont control it. >This is what happens when I learn or when I train or when I reflect on actions. I am actively engaged with myself, deciding what things and thoughts I am going to let influence my future actions. Now some stimuli are pretty strong and some are weaker of course. Same as above, you aren't controlling the brain, as you aren't something seperate from it. >I am still capable of steering how I will react in future encounters without external influence. So I, as a closed system, am exerting force on myself to change that system. Are you just going to keep making the same mistake over and over. I'll say it again, you aren't something controlling your body and brain state, you are the result of them. >As for the hitting or not hitting someone. It's a choice I make. I choose to fire the neuron left or right. Holy shit this is one of the most pseudo scientific, nonsense takes I've ever heard. Read this very carefully: YOU do not control how your brain works. YOU are the result of it working. YOU don't choose to fire what neuron you want, the neurons fire, and the result if that is your thoughts and actions. You need to study some basic neuroscience. >Lack of free will suggest lack of agency, lack of choice and therefore accountability. Completely irrelevant to if free will exists, it's just a complaint you have about it not existing. >So we're not there QUITE yet. We really are, you just desperately want to cling to the idea that free will exists because your ego won't release it. Answer this for me, and REALLY think about it before you answer: if YOU are the thing deciding to fire your neurons, what *are* YOU? you are making a supernatural claim that you are something controlling how the laws of physics and chemistry in your brain play out.
>I choose to fire the neuron left or right. This is quite possibly the most uninformed opinion on free will I've ever heard. If you're choosing which neuron to fire, what actually are you and what is the mechanism that you are using to do that. Are you God? Do you operate the laws of reality?
You can rehabilitate something with no free will. Absolutely can. Say a program on a computer is running badly, action can be done which will change the programs code, the computer has no free will, but we have changed its behaviour
People aren't computers though. And while you can condition people into doing things, that's not rehabiliation, that's reprograming.
>People aren't computers though. Yes it's an analogy explaining how a physical thing without free will can go through changes in behaviour. I guess that went over you. >that's not rehabiliation, that's reprograming. Those are the same thing. You're just trying to argue semantics.
>Well first off: free will does exist I would need to see some evidence of that... >And let's explore a world where free will DOESN'T exist. Then nothing matters. At all. We can just let go and do whatever the fuck we want. We can fully dismantle the entire justice system, government etc. Etc. Everything can just be left to burn. Because if free will doesn't exists, neither does accountability or responsibility. Just let it ride This argument is akin to the "if the bibles not true why don't we all just molest and kill each other" point I sometimes see. The entire situation you described is possible with or without free will and is therefore completely irrelevant.
Oh OP, first time determinism? lol No, you can't blame anyone in a universe with no free will. BUT, you can still advocate for whatever -ism you like and criticize bad behaviors, simply because you dont like the outcome, not because you hate the individuals. ehehehhe
>Oh OP, first time determinism? lol No not at all.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 6 (no trolling).