noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
There is faith inherent in that viewpoint.
"Chav - the Musical"
- Thread starter bun-u
- Start date
There is faith inherent in that viewpoint.
i can't see how that could be, but even if it were, what difference would it make?
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well, the issue of free-will is a thorny one of course but as far as I know it's far from settled. Until it is conclusively proven that there is no free will I intend to go along with my intuition and assume that there is (just as everyone including you does on a daily basis I'm sure).
(By the way this is quite different from the oft-quoted nonsense about "We have no free-will but we should act as if we do".)
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
If so much human behavior is the product of arbitrary circumstance what happens when you take away those accrued behavior patterns?
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
OK. If that's the case then could we not design (psychological, environmental, nutritional, whatever) conditions that engender behaviours we find to be more desirable / effective / pleasurable / profitable?
I think this is the crux by the way. As for counter arguments, they really are numerous, I'm not going to invoke the names of the big figures in this area because I think it will obscure the argument.
i don't fully understand what you mean by take them away
since when is intuition to be blindly trusted? and accepted? why should presumption be in favour of free will?
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Just call it psychoanalysis if you like.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
I am aware of some of the very fundamental physics based counter-free-will arguments.
I think a society based on assumptions of free will mitigated by the fact that behaviours can be determined by arbitrary conditions would view someone exhibiting compulsive brick throwing tendencies as basically unwell. Our society is not actually based on this premise at all, which is why we tend to favour punishment over treatment.
I think a society based on assumptions of free will mitigated by the fact that behaviours can be determined by arbitrary conditions would view someone exhibiting compulsive brick throwing tendencies as basically unwell. Our society is not actually based on this premise at all, which is why we tend to favour punishment over treatment.
Last edited:
where is the gap in my argument? im not certain there isn't one, i just cant see it
i just dont understand! im sorry, maybe im being slow...
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Basing a society on assumptions of no free will only makes sense if that is actually true.
If free will exists and we do this then things will probably get really bad (worse), unnecessarily.
Basing a society on assumptions of free will (with the above mentioned mitigations) can not possibly be bad if free will does not exist, and makes a lot of sense if free will does exist.
It's logical.
If we are talking efficacy we have to go for the second option, unless we know better.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
In any case, we're all lumped with the subjective feeling of possessing free will, which feeling will persist whether the idea of doing so is 'valid' or not.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Some people do claim not to feel like they have free will. I'd say they were wrong though.
But yes, it still doesn't make any difference in terms of how we logically define our society.
Last edited:
don_quixote
Trent End
this thread does strike me as like right-wing hand-wringing over political correctness - is it really a major problem? yeah there's upper class nobs but i dunnnno, surely there's more serious issues than this
Even if there is no free will (at the level of the individual) there remain statistical likelihoods based around the factors which make up each individual- factors which can be manipulated. As such it might therefore be greatly harmful to fail to admit the totally deterministic society- for in doing so we would fail to achieve the manifest benefits of determinism...
Merely because we feel like we make a decision, how does that give us any guide to the actuality of the process which leads us into making the decision? Anyway the real issue rests at the level of how a will can be free, and if the individual's personality and mind is reasonably static within the time scale on actually making the decision, then they are to a certain extent fixed- determined- and as such will always make such a decision. Its still YOUR decision, even more so than the free will position in fact... there remains ownership of the decision, and hence the feeling of choice making. But Choice making need not mean that you could have acted otherwise, merely that someone else would have done.
Last edited:
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
'No free will' I would generally take to mean a completely deterministic universe.
This sounds like you are agreeing with me that conditions can be manipulated (intentionally) towards desirable ends. Re: deterministic society - that sounds like the accident we have now, not a desirable or necessary condition.
Manifest benefits of determinism?
Can we not instead decide on how good a decision is based on it's benefits? Why should it matter how we get there?
From my point of view the real debate isn't about free will but about attitudes to personal responsibility. In any case I think you are equating 'will' with mind here which I wouldn't do.
This follows on from your definition of mind as a mechanical process. Like society I don't think it should necessarily be seen that way, even if that is often the prevailing mode.
Are you really denying the logic of what I outlined above; that it is potentially very dangerous to completely refute the existence of free will - especially if this is wrong, whereas to assume free will can not possibly be a problem and may even be right.
I don't think that total free will exists on an individual level but I do think it does to an extent.