Free will deniers

[Estro Felino]

Yes, Exactly.

Can you control biology? We try, and for all the good it has done, it has also done irreparable harm.

Why not just let go?

Free will is made up of two words.
Will= it's something we want.
Free= it's when nobody prevents us from doing what we want.

It's not something paradoxical...because in order to be a wish, it has to be something that doesn't affect others' life.
Otherwise it's not will...it's tyranny, overbearingness, prepotency...etc...

For example: the psycho J. complains because he wants to murder the woman B., and he says he has no free will because the law enforcement prevents him from doing that.

Is that your point? That is, that in your view, free will implies that criminals should be free to affect people's lives, by destroying them?

 

[The Hammer]

Free will is made up of two words.
Will= it's something we want.
Free= it's when nobody prevents us from doing what we want.

It's not something paradoxical...because in order to be a wish, it has to be something that doesn't affect others' life.
Otherwise it's not will...it's tyranny, overbearingness, prepotency...etc...

For example: the psycho J. complains because he wants to murder the woman B., and he says he has no free will because the law enforcement prevents him from doing that.

Is that your point? That is, that in your view, free will implies that criminals should be free to affect people's lives, by destroying them?

Fate. Your asking if fate exists. That's one word. Yes.

No paradox needed. Free will as you defined it (able to affect ones will on circumstances), only partially exists (my Original post stated this position).

So no. To your extreme slippery slope argument, criminals shouldn't just be let free.

But try to untangle the threads of fate a bit before we punish wontonly.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fate. Your asking if fate exists. That's one word. Yes.

No paradox needed. Free will as you defined it (able to affect ones will on circumstances), only partially exists (my Original post stated this position).

So no. To your extreme slippery slope argument, criminals shouldn't just be let free.

But try to untangle the threads of fate a bit before we punish wontonly.

Fate doesn't exist.
It's a stupid invention, such as good luck and bad luck. They don't exist.

But I do understand that American philosophy is greatly influenced by determinism.

As I said, free will, called liberum arbitrium by Erasmus is the freedom of choice, but in order to be a legitimate choice, it necessarily mustn't affect other people's lives.
Free will deniers probably focus on "what I want", as if "what others want" were irrelevant.
When you equate You to Others, then you can understand free will.
You are as important as Others and Others are as important as You.

 

[The Hammer]

Fate doesn't exist.
It's a stupid invention, such as good luck and bad luck. They don't exist.

.

Mmk

 

[Nakosis]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I think your professor has a limited view.
Also it depends on how one is defining free will.
Your professor seem to be defining free will as the ability to do what you want to do.
First knowing what is possible for you to do and second freely choosing among those possibilities.

Then there is another definition which make free will impossible. The ability to have made a choice other than the one you made. Which is itself an incoherent definition since you can't go back in time to have made a different choice and why would you have chosen to act against your will anyway?

Now where I think you professor is wrong is that some who don't believe in free will do so with this second definition in mind, not because they are trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.

To me, those who define free will in an incoherent manner are simply not worth arguing with. Their idea of free will can't exist by definition so leave it at that. I simply freely choose to define free will differently, in a way that makes sense.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think your professor has a limited view.
Also it depends on how one is defining free will.
Your professor seem to be defining free will as the ability to do what you want to do.
First knowing what is possible for you to do and second freely choosing among those possibilities.

I define free will the freedom of choosing something that doesn't affect other people's lives.
Because others too, have legitimate desires.
The problem arises when you think that your desires are better than others's desires, so you have the right to make them prevail over the others' desires.

Then there is another definition which make free will impossible. The ability to have made a choice other than the one you made. Which is itself an incoherent definition since you can't go back in time to have made a different choice and why would you have chosen to act against your will anyway?

It depends. It's like the criminal who said: I shot at my sister because I hated her.
In her twisted mind, her sister deserved to die, so she couldn't have made a different choice.

Now where I think you professor is wrong is that some who don't believe in free will do so with this second definition in mind, not because they are trying to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Most criminals don't believe in free will and say that they had to kill that person, or that they feel justified somehow.

 

[Curious George]

I don't believe in free will or even believe that it is a coherent concept, and I know multiple people who think the same.

That is interesting. I think lack of freewill is an incoherent concept, and I have never met a person who acts as though freewill does not exist (despite the opinions they profess).

 

[Curious George]

A metaphysical denier of free will, may well possess an internal locus of control. All that means is that he thinks that his decision-making and choosing has a large impact on the goings-on in his life. (Even though he thinks that decision-making was all predetermined by nature.)

I am not sure that this is possible with denial of free will. I think the conclusion of denying free will is the conclusion that one can exert no control “on the goings-on.” Any claim of control, however slight, asserted by the ego would lead to a conclusion of free will. You cannot both assert “my decision impacted” and “I had no decision” without contradiction.

 

[Nakosis]

I define free will the freedom of choosing something that doesn't affect other people's lives.
Because others too, have legitimate desires.
The problem arises when you think that your desires are better than others's desires, so you have the right to make them prevail over the others' desires.

That's a tough one. I think everything you do effects someone else's life, even if alone on a desert island you actions are going to affect the plants and animals around you.

I don't see my desires as better than anyone else's, they just happen to be my desires. And normally my desire is not to cause anyone else any unnecessary harm so it tends to work out. Occasionally there are conflicts and I'm willing to work things out in everyone's best interest. If that doesn't work well then too bad for them.

It depends. It's like the criminal who said: I shot at my sister because I hated her.
In her twisted mind, her sister deserved to die, so she couldn't have made a different choice.

Anecdotal. More the exception than the rule I think. Yes some may think like that but I don't think everyone who doesn't believe in free will does. Yeah it's a little weird, I'm not sure how they cognate that in their mind. You know they had no choice but they still have to be responsible for their actions.

I just don't think everyone who denies free will does so from bad intentions.

Most criminals don't believe in free will and say that they had to kill that person, or that they feel justified somehow.

I don't know that is true. I don't know what is in most criminals minds though I can believe that criminals exist who truly think they could have acted otherwise and wish they did.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's a tough one. I think everything you do effects someone else's life, even if alone on a desert island you actions are going to affect the plants and animals around you.

I don't see my desires as better than anyone else's, they just happen to be my desires. And normally my desire is not to cause anyone else any unnecessary harm so it tends to work out. Occasionally there are conflicts and I'm willing to work things out in everyone's best interest. If that doesn't work well then too bad for them.

I can give you the examples of people who are forced to go to war even if they don't want to.
In Ukraine and in many other parts of the world.
And they will die in that war.
Because someone decided to send them to war, instead of going to war himself.

I am sorry...the more you discuss the topic, the more you convince me that free will deniers are guilty people who don't want to feel guilty.

 

[Curious George]

I simply freely choose to define free will differently, in a way that makes sense

What does it mean to choose if you could not have done otherwise?

Can you choose to sneeze right now? Can you choose to stop your heart from beating? I wonder if you have played a semantic game in your head in order to misunderstand what is meant by “could have chosen otherwise.”

 

[vulcanlogician]

I am not sure that this is possible with denial of free will. I think the conclusion of denying free will is the conclusion that one can exert no control “on the goings-on.” Any claim of control, however slight, asserted by the ego would lead to a conclusion of free will. You cannot both assert “my decision impacted” and “I had no decision” without contradiction.

Keep in mind that a "free will denier" doesn't deny that we have will. We make choices... but those choices aren't free. The choices we make are determined by prior causes. They don't spontaneously arise like they appear to. A person could recognize that his "choices" (even though they aren't free) do a great deal to affect the events that transpire in his life. When I wake up in the morning I select between oatmeal or cornflakes. No denier of free will says that such a process of selection doesn't take place. It obviously does.

Consider a hypothetical world which we know is deterministic. An extremely rich person in such a world may, due to environmental influences, end up having an internal locus of control. An extremely poor prostitute in the very same world may end up having an external locus of control. The metaphysics of the issue have no bearing on what people learn psychologically.

 

[Estro Felino]

Keep in mind that a "free will denier" doesn't deny that we have will. We make choices... but those choices aren't free. The choices we make are determined by prior causes. They don't spontaneously arise like they appear to. A person could recognize that his "choices" (even though they aren't free) do a great deal to affect the events that transpire in his life. When I wake up in the morning I select between oatmeal or cornflakes. No denier of free will says that such a process of selection doesn't take place. It obviously does.

I guess you have had sex in your life.
Does someone force you to have sex? Is there a deity or a person that forces you to have sex?

No. Sex is the evidence of free will. We have sex because we want to. It's our free will.

 

[Nakosis]

What does it mean to choose if you could not have done otherwise?

Can you choose to sneeze right now? Can you choose to stop your heart from beating? I wonder if you have played a semantic game in your head in order to misunderstand what is meant by “could have chosen otherwise.”

It means at that point you don't have free will. Like if you are in prison your free will is severely restricted.
As I said part of free will is looking at the possibilities of what you can actually choose from. Not the ability to choose something that is impossible for you to do.

 

[Nakosis]

I can give you the examples of people who are forced to go to war even if they don't want to.
In Ukraine and in many other parts of the world.
And they will die in that war.
Because someone decided to send them to war, instead of going to war himself.

I am sorry...the more you discuss the topic, the more you convince me that free will deniers are guilty people who don't want to feel guilty.

Ok, well I don't need to deny free will to not feel guilty. I only need to believe my actions were right.
Many people in America chose not to go to war in the 60's. To evade the draft.

I just think it is kind of a one-off reason to deny free will to avoid guilt. There are easier ways to go about it.

 

[HonestJoe]

What do you think, guys?

With respect, I think it's complete rubbish (either what you mentor said or how you interpreted it). How could someone choose to not use their free will? Just think about that concept for a moment.

Free will either exists or it doesn't. If we have free will, we just have it. We don't choose to use it or even need to be aware of it, it just is. That is a major part of what makes it all but impossible to really know if it exists or not. Whether it does or doesn't, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ok, well I don't need to deny free will to not feel guilty. I only need to believe my actions were right.

There are several kinds of free will deniers. There are theists who are free will deniers as well because they bring up God.
Are you one of these?

 

[Shaul]

I think people can have free will but not a free lunch.

 

[Nakosis]

There are several kinds of free will deniers. There are theists who are free will deniers as well because they bring up God.
Are you one of these?

I'm not a theist.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not a theist.

There's atheistic determinism, as well.