Does the non-existence of free will change your beliefs?

[1137]

It's a form of Compatibilism.

Ah yes, compatibilism; the contradictory belief that determinism and free will can coexist. I laugh at the idea usually. You see, if we have any free will then free will is true. Obviously things are always going to be at least partially determined, that does not contradict free will. I would not call that compatibalism though, it is simply having free will. This is an either / or type thing with no inbetween.

 

[1137]

Hard determinism is incompatible with free-will, saying that free-will does not exist. The OP is about how this would affect your belief system, if hard determinism was true.

My belief system is such that if free-will didn't exist, I would have to make it exist.

My tactic to do so would be by removing hindrances. Running that simulation now.

I still do not understand how that would be possible, even in theory.

 

[crossfire]

A strange doctrine, which I can readily see as being false.

Falling of the ledge of a cliff, which suddenly gave way, is an action of the self, but not one determined by the self. Or dying, an action of a self, when struck by lightening wouldn't be self-determined.

Nope. It's about changing your nature.

 

[Willamena]

A strange doctrine, which I can readily see as being false.

Falling of the ledge of a cliff, which suddenly gave way, is an action of the self, but not one determined by the self. Or dying, an action of a self, when struck by lightening wouldn't be self-determined.

Accidents, in contrast with volition, are accounted for.

 

[Willamena]

Ah yes, compatibilism; the contradictory belief that determinism and free will can coexist. I laugh at the idea usually. You see, if we have any free will then free will is true. Obviously things are always going to be at least partially determined, that does not contradict free will. I would not call that compatibalism though, it is simply having free will. This is an either / or type thing with no inbetween.

Things can be completely determined, and still there can be free will.

 

[Skwim]

Nope. It's about changing your nature.

That's not what your dictionary definition said. Are you making up your own definition?

Accidents, in contrast with volition, are accounted for.

Not in the Merriam-Webster definition:

"a doctrine that the actions of a self are determined by itself"
​

The definition is not qualified.

 

[crossfire]

I still do not understand how that would be possible, even in theory.

There is enough chaos in the universe that "perfection" is not possible. (In this case, perfect determinism.) One cannot even physically draw a "perfect" circle--it would have to contain no quantum elements in order to be "perfect." The only place "perfection" exists is within our minds, in the form of ideas and concepts. Removing the hindrance of clinging to the concept of "perfection" and to quit projecting it out into the physical realm is probably the best place to start.

 

[Skwim]

Things can be completely determined, and still there can be free will.

Obviously you exclude actions by sentient organisms from "things can be completely determined." *tsk* *tsk*

 

[crossfire]

That's not what your dictionary definition said. Are you making up your own definition?



Not in the Merriam-Webster definition:

"a doctrine that the actions of a self are determined by itself"
​

The definition is not qualified.

Did the self cause the lightening to strike or for the cliff to give way? No.

 

[Willamena]

That's not what your dictionary definition said. Are you making up your own definition?



Not in the Merriam-Webster definition:

"a doctrine that the actions of a self are determined by itself"
​

The definition is not qualified.

That would be because it's accounted for in the doctrine, not in the dictionary.

 

[Willamena]

Obviously you exclude actions by sentient organisms from "things can be completely determined." *tsk* *tsk*

Actually, I don't--that's the point.

 

[crossfire]

That's not what your dictionary definition said. Are you making up your own definition?



Not in the Merriam-Webster definition:

"a doctrine that the actions of a self are determined by itself"
​

The definition is not qualified.

A sniplet from the link I posted here:

It's a form of Compatibilism.

(II) According to active self-determinism, we can ultimately choose independently of culture and past conditioning because we can be self-aware and can engage in a critique of ourselves. In short, we can transcend or "step outside" of ourselves to reflect on what we have become and decide whether we want to remain that way. This self-awareness allows us to be free to make new and creative decisions. This view is the one adopted by Aristotle.
Aristotle: we are free insofar as we are responsible for our actions, and we are responsible only for those actions that we do voluntarily (that is, as a result of our choices). Insofar as our habits or dispositions are the result of choices we have made in the past, any choices or actions based on them are voluntary and are our responsibility. We are responsible for any action that results from our "culpable" ignorance or negligence if any reasonable person in our circumstances could have avoided such ignorance or negligence. We are also responsible for learning how a "reasonable" person thinks, and that means not allowing ourselves to become selfish or lazy. Ultimately, we are responsible for developing through our actions the character and personality traits that form the foundation on which our actions are based. We are not responsible for involuntary actions, that is, those actions over which we have no control and which result from coercion, constraint, or justifiable ignorance.​

 

[Storm]

Hard determinism is incompatible with free-will, saying that free-will does not exist. The OP is about how this would affect your belief system, if hard determinism was true.

My belief system is such that if free-will didn't exist, I would have to make it exist.

My tactic to do so would be by removing hindrances. Running that simulation now.

So basically, you'd violate the fundamental laws of nature by virtue of being a stubborn bad ***?

I think I like you.

 

[crossfire]

So basically, you'd violate the fundamental laws of nature by virtue of being a stubborn bad ***?

I think I like you.

LOL, well I'd have to find a way. If there is a creator god, then I'd also want to show compassion to that being by giving evidence that all of creation is not just a product of said being's mind--hence delusion.

 

[Skwim]

Did the self cause the lightening to strike or for the cliff to give way? No.

Which is why the action of the individual dying or falling was not self determined: self-determined being the heart of the definition you provided.

Actually, I don't--that's the point.

Then where does the freewill enter the picture?

"Things can be completely determined, and still there can be free will."
​

A sniplet from the link I posted here:
Originally Posted by crossfire
It's a form of Compatibilism.

(II) According to active self-determinism, we can ultimately choose independently of culture and past conditioning because we can be self-aware and can engage in a critique of ourselves. In short, we can transcend or "step outside" of ourselves to reflect on what we have become and decide whether we want to remain that way. This self-awareness allows us to be free to make new and creative decisions. This view is the one adopted by Aristotle.
Aristotle: we are free insofar as we are responsible for our actions, and we are responsible only for those actions that we do voluntarily (that is, as a result of our choices). Insofar as our habits or dispositions are the result of choices we have made in the past, any choices or actions based on them are voluntary and are our responsibility. We are responsible for any action that results from our "culpable" ignorance or negligence if any reasonable person in our circumstances could have avoided such ignorance or negligence. We are also responsible for learning how a "reasonable" person thinks, and that means not allowing ourselves to become selfish or lazy. Ultimately, we are responsible for developing through our actions the character and personality traits that form the foundation on which our actions are based. We are not responsible for involuntary actions, that is, those actions over which we have no control and which result from coercion, constraint, or justifiable ignorance.
​

Ah ha, compatablism. That old, laim end-run play. Gotcha.
​

 

[Willamena]

Then where does the freewill enter the picture?

"Things can be completely determined, and still there can be free will."
​

Ah ha, compatablism. That old, laim end-run play. Gotcha.
​

It enters the picture in (to borrow crossfire's words) "what I think is a bad definition of free will." Your comment that I exclude actions by sentient organisms from "things [that] can be completely determined" speaks either to an assumption of what I think of free will, or to what you think of free will. Signs indicate the latter.

 

[Skwim]

It enters the picture in (to borrow crossfire's words) "what I think is a bad definition of free will." Your comment that I exclude actions by sentient organisms from "things [that] can be completely determined" speaks either to an assumption of what I think of free will, or to what you think of free will. Signs indicate the latter.

Then I can only conclude you're using some kind of compatabilist concept of freewill.

 

[1137]

There is enough chaos in the universe that "perfection" is not possible.

Stop, wrong. There is not even the slightest shred of chaos in all of reality, this universe included. Obviously you do not understand what determinism is, how our deterministic reality works, and that is why you are under the impression that you can somehow create free will for yourself. Perfection is not possible because it is a subjective ideal, so it is not objectively possible to achieve.

 

[crossfire]

Perfection is not possible because it is a subjective ideal, so it is not objectively possible to achieve.

Indeed. That is why it is not a good idea to project that subjective ideal onto objective reality. It becomes a hindrance to clearly seeing reality. You miss perceiving possibilities--you screen out that which does not conform to your idea of perfection.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ah yes, compatibilism; the contradictory belief that determinism and free will can coexist. I laugh at the idea usually.

Interesting. From Dr. Baer's paper "Free will requires determinism":

"Since the quantum revolution, few scientists believe that the world is totally deterministic. But if, at any moment, anything could happen—which is another way of saying that the past has no control over the present and future—then any kind of prediction or control, or even understanding, would be impossible. Psychology can proceed only to the extent that the universe is deterministic. So psychologists rather naturally attend to those aspects of human behavior that follow (or that they assume follow) discernible cause-and-effect logic."

from the edited volume Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2008).

The gist of the essay is that free will requires a deterministic (in some sense) universe and that "[d]eterminism makes free will possible" because without it there is only random events.