Free Will as Nonsense.

[Ellen Brown]

Thanks....

.......but though I AM LDS, and definitely a 'true believer,' I'm aware that we do not hold the monopoly on that.

None of them would ever say that I was easy to manage.

 

[Stevicus]

I believe you are talking about something different here...not 'free will,' but rather 'justification' or 'reasons,' or 'weighing the choices.'

You are correct in that while some choices may end up having the same consequences, the reason for making those choices may be different, making them more or less 'reasonable,' or 'moral,' or 'ethical...'

Your example of the soldier who is 'broken' through torture, for instance; nobody is going to blame him for breaking. I understand that the military is quite aware that anybody can be, and the consequences for that soldier will be very different than they would be for the guy who 'did it' for money or without torture, however 'torture' is defined.

You use that example. I have used the one about the bank manager whose family is held hostage and he is told that if he doesn't rob his own bank, his family will be harmed/killed. I use that because this has actually happened, more than once.

The manager still has a choice; he can say 'no,' he won't rob the bank. He can choose to 'cheat,' and try to alert the police in some way that wouldn't tip off the kidnappers. The fact that the kidnappers give him consequences for SAYING 'no' is proof that he can do that. What they HAVE done is what you just mentioned; changed the weight of the choice being made from immoral/unethical (betraying secrets/robbing a bank) to moral/ethical (choosing a 'lesser evil' in order to prevent a greater one).

I don't know of a single incident of someone who robbed a bank because his/her family was held hostage that was blamed in any way for his/her actions, even though the consequences (robbed bank) were the same as if s/he had just taken it into his/her head to go in and rob it one day.

The broken soldier isn't blamed, either...except by him/herself.

But that doesn't mean that freedom of choice was removed from either one. It only means that the consequences of those choices are different.

....and when it comes right down to it, when we make choices, we ARE 'choosing the consequences,' rather than the specific action, aren't we?

I think in both examples, I don't think either the soldier or the bank manager would be officially blamed in a legal sense. Although I don't know if it could be said that "nobody" would blame them. Some people might be less forgiving than others.

It's similar with people who plead insanity after committing a crime. They might still get blamed for the crime, but they would get different treatment than those who are deemed "sane." But there are some people who may have a more cynical view of the insanity plea and think that it's not always done in good faith. Even those who didn't plead insane, they don't often seem like they're playing with a full deck, so who's to say?

But it could also be argued that the criminal act itself might be an indication of some level of insanity or mental illness.

I remember a story where some guy killed his kids because he thought they were possessed by Satan. He believed that God was telling him to kill his own kids. I would presume that he would probably be locked up in some maximum security mental hospital of some sort. Society has recourse for dealing with anyone who is dangerous, regardless of whether they're insane and therefore "not in control of their own faculties," one of which happens to be "free will."

I'm an agnostic, and I can go either way on the whole "God" question. But it is interesting to speculate how "free will" can sometimes be lost or simply out of control.

On a side note, those who ostensibly have the will to decide that they're following God's orders in killing someone they think is possessed by Satan, I wonder how that's dealt with by God? If they really, truly, sincerely believed that their children were possessed by Satan and that God ordered them to be killed, would God forgive them?

 

[Nakosis]

It’s a very nuanced concept, morality. Can you give reasons why you would think one can have absolute free will that is unaffected by genetics and personal experiences? I am open to changing my mind if you can show it is possible.

No, because I'm not talking about deterministic philosophy. I'm talking about the ability to control one's emotions and actions. There are of course lots of things that influence the choices we make. How we come to have the will to do this is not important. What is important is whether we can act according to our will or not. To me free will is simply the ability to act on a desire or not, the ability to act on an emotion or not.So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't use your definition of free will.

 

[Milton Platt]

No, because I'm not talking about deterministic philosophy. I'm talking about the ability to control one's emotions and actions. There are of course lots of things that influence the choices we make. How we come to have the will to do this is not important. What is important is whether we can act according to our will or not. To me free will is simply the ability to act on a desire or not, the ability to act on an emotion or not.So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't use your definition of free will.

I understand your point of view. I agree we have will. I just don’t agree it is completely free.

 

[shmogie]

So, the Creator screwed up? Did He create some kind of monster that got out of His control?



I agree that we can only make choices within the framework of our ability to make them. That's what I've been saying. But the "framework" itself is what I would call into question. With all due respect to America's Founders, it's quite clear that not all men are created equal. Some are born smarter and stronger, while some might be born with imperfections, disabilities, medical conditions - or just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It seems obvious that not everyone has the same level of knowledge or experience.

As to the Founders, I think they were addressing equal opportunity.

Again, from a theological perspective, one is either capable of making the decisions for which they will be held accountable, or they are not. A baby cannot, an insane person cannot. God, in mercy, makes provisions for these.

 

[viole]

Jesus cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. And he answered them: Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. (Luke vii, 21-22) This is the aim of sacred magic; it is nothing other than to give the freedom to see, to hear, to walk, to live, to follow an ideal and to be truly oneself — i.e. to give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, the ability to walk to the lame, life to the dead, good news or ideals to the poor and free will to those who are possessed by evil spirits. It never encroaches upon freedom, the restoration of which is its unique aim.

You make it sound like those are facts.

They are just nice stories written in a book, you know...like Pinocchio and such.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I understand your position, however it seems to be a different position to those who argue criminals can definitely be rehabilitated.

Of course it is very different.

Also the statement, "does not necessarily imply that X is false" hardly implies or proves that X is true, just that it remains within the realm of possibility. To date I haven't really delved into the arguments that atttempt to prove freewill is an illusion, so because it seems counter intuitive I reject it until someone proves it to be true.

Well, since we are ultimately the functioning of several billions of neurons, I am not sure what kind of freedom that network can have.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

As to the Founders, I think they were addressing equal opportunity.

Again, from a theological perspective, one is either capable of making the decisions for which they will be held accountable, or they are not. A baby cannot, an insane person cannot. God, in mercy, makes provisions for these.

According to this we should envy insane people or kids who die very young.

Luky them. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[PuerAzaelis]

You make it sound like those are facts.

They are just nice stories written in a book, you know...like Pinocchio and such.

Certainly true. I am fond of Pinocchio. It may also be a fact that Pinocchio's nose grows when he lies. Which is why I sympathize with him.

 

[viole]

Certainly true. I am fond of Pinocchio. It may also be a fact that Pinocchio's nose grows when he lies. Which is why I sympathize with him.

You see? That is why I am also fond of Jesus and sympathize with him.

It may also be that he took the Passover weekend off for our sins. Who can say? That is equally plausible as the nose growing scenario.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Who can say indeed. It may be true that a very quiet pink hippopotamus is currently sleeping in my attic. I know this is possible because I'm not in my attic at the moment, so I can't verify. It's quite a odd world, all kinds of things are possible.

 

[Nakosis]

I understand your point of view. I agree we have will. I just don’t agree it is completely free.

I suppose it is the freedom part. You see it as necessary before will, I see it as necessary after.

Dennett, for instance, in his book Elbow Room, argues that what we call free will is a highly developed ability, that we have refined in the course of evolution, to envisage future possibilities and to avoid those we don’t like. This concept of freedom (being able to avoid undesirable futures) is compatible with determinism, and it’s all we need. Traditional metaphysical notions of free will that are incompatible with determinism, he argues, are not worth saving.

Soft Determinism Explained

 

[shmogie]

So, the Creator screwed up? Did He create some kind of monster that got out of His control?



I agree that we can only make choices within the framework of our ability to make them. That's what I've been saying. But the "framework" itself is what I would call into question. With all due respect to America's Founders, it's quite clear that not all men are created equal. Some are born smarter and stronger, while some might be born with imperfections, disabilities, medical conditions - or just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It seems obvious that not everyone has the same level of knowledge or experience.

According to this we should envy insane people or kids who die very young.

Luky them. Right?

Ciao

- viole

You may consider them lucky, if you choose. It is what it is

 

[dianaiad]

None of them would ever say that I was easy to manage.

Neither am I. Indeed, someone who tries to 'manage' me gets...er...short shrift.

 

[dianaiad]

I think in both examples, I don't think either the soldier or the bank manager would be officially blamed in a legal sense. Although I don't know if it could be said that "nobody" would blame them. Some people might be less forgiving than others.

Well, that's their problem. People being people, some of 'em would call a newborn evil for pooping in his diaper.

It's similar with people who plead insanity after committing a crime. They might still get blamed for the crime, but they would get different treatment than those who are deemed "sane." But there are some people who may have a more cynical view of the insanity plea and think that it's not always done in good faith. Even those who didn't plead insane, they don't often seem like they're playing with a full deck, so who's to say?

Exactly. Who IS to 'say?" Me...I figure that God will, or the person doing the choosing will...the rest of us have to go with what society's rules are. So, if someone is not 'officially blamed,' then s/he's not to blame. At least, not to be blamed by me.

But it could also be argued that the criminal act itself might be an indication of some level of insanity or mental illness.

Could be. I don't. I think it's quite common for sane people to make lousy choices.

I remember a story where some guy killed his kids because he thought they were possessed by Satan. He believed that God was telling him to kill his own kids. I would presume that he would probably be locked up in some maximum security mental hospital of some sort. Society has recourse for dealing with anyone who is dangerous, regardless of whether they're insane and therefore "not in control of their own faculties," one of which happens to be "free will."

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that last sentence. It reads that one of the recourses society has for dealing with dangerous people is 'free will?" Did you mean to do that?

I'm an agnostic, and I can go either way on the whole "God" question. But it is interesting to speculate how "free will" can sometimes be lost or simply out of control.

Uhmn...the whole point of free will is that we are IN control..at least of the choices available to us.

On a side note, those who ostensibly have the will to decide that they're following God's orders in killing someone they think is possessed by Satan, I wonder how that's dealt with by God? If they really, truly, sincerely believed that their children were possessed by Satan and that God ordered them to be killed, would God forgive them?

I think God would. Not sure if the killer, becoming sane again, would forgive himself. But then God does have a slightly different perspective regarding these things. He'd have to.

 

[Milton Platt]

I suppose it is the freedom part. You see it as necessary before will, I see it as necessary after.

Dennett, for instance, in his book Elbow Room, argues that what we call free will is a highly developed ability, that we have refined in the course of evolution, to envisage future possibilities and to avoid those we don’t like. This concept of freedom (being able to avoid undesirable futures) is compatible with determinism, and it’s all we need. Traditional metaphysical notions of free will that are incompatible with determinism, he argues, are not worth saving.

Soft Determinism Explained

Right, i agree it is will, but entirely free will.

 

[Willamena]

From a religious perspective if it's not a decision that is made by force or circumstances, is it free will in terms of ones preferred choice to choose between Heaven and Hell?
Assuming hypothetically such places exist for sake of the question.

I think it's just a silly religious term anyways that's really quite vague, for which nobody really knows what it implies. I suppose it's ones free will to define it. ;0)

I can't speak to the religious perspective, sorry.

 

[Stevicus]

As to the Founders, I think they were addressing equal opportunity.

Again, from a theological perspective, one is either capable of making the decisions for which they will be held accountable, or they are not. A baby cannot, an insane person cannot. God, in mercy, makes provisions for these.

Well, I would hope so, at least as far as God taking these things into consideration. But there might also be a question of how "insane" someone would have to be in order to not be held accountable.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, that's their problem. People being people, some of 'em would call a newborn evil for pooping in his diaper.



Exactly. Who IS to 'say?" Me...I figure that God will, or the person doing the choosing will...the rest of us have to go with what society's rules are. So, if someone is not 'officially blamed,' then s/he's not to blame. At least, not to be blamed by me.

That seems an acceptable standard to me. However, the point still being, if people have different standards, then it's basically a judgment call. If we assume that God is the ultimate judge and that humans are unqualified to make that call, then that would make all this discussion about "free will" nothing more than speculation and guessing (which really sums up most theological discussions anyway).

Could be. I don't. I think it's quite common for sane people to make lousy choices.

Lousy choices, yes. But evil choices, such as choosing to commit murder - that would be different. Would the desire, attempt, or act to commit murder, in and of itself, be evidence of mental illness? I think the general standard would be if someone was considered a danger to themselves or others.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that last sentence. It reads that one of the recourses society has for dealing with dangerous people is 'free will?" Did you mean to do that?

No, I was referring to society's definition, such as if someone is considered a danger to themselves or others. That would be sufficient for locking someone away.

In the sentence you're referring to, I also mentioned that, from society's point of view, such a person would be "not in control of their own faculties." The "faculties" in question would include memory, ability to speak, ability to reason, and (by extrapolation) "free will." Legally, such a person would be considered to have lost his/her free will (or that it is no longer in their control).

Uhmn...the whole point of free will is that we are IN control..at least of the choices available to us.

But as we've been discussing, some people lose their control over whatever part of their mind constitutes "free will."

I think God would. Not sure if the killer, becoming sane again, would forgive himself. But then God does have a slightly different perspective regarding these things. He'd have to.

But then that brings us to the question of how "sane" does a person have to be to be considered "sane." How much control does any individual truly have, when the rubber finally meets the road?

I'm not denying that people have the ability to make choices or that they don't have some sort of "will," but where does it really come from? Many people might believe that it comes from each individual, but that doesn't really say anything about how the human mind works.

The entire concept seems more surface-level and superficial, kind of like "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." That may be how we mere mortals have to operate within the limitations of our current technologies and understanding of human behavior. But if there is some sort of intelligent designer or creator, then it would seem that he or she would have to have intimate knowledge of our inner workings and programming.

 

[shmogie]

Well, I would hope so, at least as far as God taking these things into consideration. But there might also be a question of how "insane" someone would have to be in order to not be held accountable.

In law there are very specific criteria to be established for a verdict of diminished responsibility or insanity.,