If there's no free-will...

[dybmh]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

 

[Trailblazer]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

and how could we argue about it if we could not choose to argue about it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think some things point to free will, while other things don't. When it comes to comparing free will and an opposite concept, it's either neither or both. I think. And not just one.

 

[Nakosis]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

We are fated/destined to argue about it. Use is irrelevant.

I suppose to perhaps understand why it seems we do.

 

[osgart]

So the invention of computers was deterministically inevitable. I suppose people like Turing could have decided not to work on such a thing. Or maybe he couldn't stop himself from being brilliant.

If we tell people there's no free will then maybe they'll throw up their hands too soon before they could actually make a difference. That would be a tragedy.

In reality the onus is on everyone to make the best possible choices they can. Humanity loses something without that onus.

 

[Deeje]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

I want to know why people ever thought free will was actually free in the first place?...as in a 'free-for-all'....it was only ever to be exercised within certain constraints, because unbridled individual free will can rob others of the right to exercise theirs.....so the idea that free will means you can do whatever you wish without repercussions or consequences for yourself and others, is not only illogical, it is actually undesirable.....no actions are without outcomes, some of which are lamentable in hindsight....but preventable with foresight. We had to learn to drive it....so IMO, foresight is the better driver of free will....along with the Golden Rule.
Does that make sense?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We are fated/destined to argue about it. Use is irrelevant.

I suppose to perhaps understand why it seems we do.

I assume because if we were aware of our lack of freewill, we would also become aware of the interconnected-ness and oneness of Everything. God's trying to forget He's alone for a while.

 

[Brickjectivity]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

Let me think about that. Assume for the moment there is no free will and all is predetermined. Then we are like a glass menagerie, and our arguments are part of that same menagerie with us...like crystalline objects in a shop window. There is no advantage to being a person or to being an argument, and both have the same value. The arguments may have no value to ourselves, but they are spectacle just as we are. They are our brothers, then.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

I can't find many who will debate it, and most of those who do will not take it beyond "I had choice a and choice b and chose b so free will exists." They seem to forget there is a counterpoint when it comes to debate, and any mentions of the illusion of choice and all the variables and factors beyond our control that shape and mold us get dismissed with the pleb example of simple choice that's usually not even really much choice or even meaningful in a way to discuss the subject.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think there is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I want to know why people ever thought free will was actually free in the first place?...as in a 'free-for-all'....it was only ever to be exercised within certain constraints, because unbridled individual free will can rob others of the right to exercise theirs.....so the idea that free will means you can do whatever you wish without repercussions or consequences for yourself and others, is not only illogical, it is actually undesirable.....no actions are without outcomes, some of which are lamentable in hindsight....but preventable with foresight. We had to learn to drive it....so IMO, foresight is the better driver of free will....along with the Golden Rule.
Does that make sense?

Consequences determine how we use our free will. They do not determine the existence of free will.

If it is constrained, then it is not free.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

Maybe some of us are compelled to argue.

 

[Trailblazer]

I assume because if we were aware of our lack of freewill, we would also become aware of the interconnected-ness and oneness of Everything. God's trying to forget He's alone for a while.

Why would we become aware of the interconnected-ness and oneness of Everything if we were aware of our lack of freewill? I do not understand the connection.

 

[Spirit of Light]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

I have a thought about this

It could be that our path through life is predestine in the main area of what we as human beings should go through, how much suffering, how much happiness and so on.
But the free-will may be in our daily life, what we want to eat, where we want to take holiday and so on.

But in the big picture it might be already set in time

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't find many who will debate it, and most of those who do will not take it beyond "I had choice a and choice b and chose b so free will exists." They seem to forget there is a counterpoint when it comes to debate, and any mentions of the illusion of choice and all the variables and factors beyond our control that shape and mold us get dismissed with the pleb example of simple choice that's usually not even really much choice or even meaningful in a way to discuss the subject.

I will debate you. I hold the position that we have no metaphysical free will or if you like ex nihilo free will.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I will debate you. I hold the position that we have no metaphysical free will or if you like ex nihilo free will.

But, I'm not entirely convinced that isn't what we have as reality and choice may really be just an illusion.
Not entirely ex nihilo, based on some quantum stuff and statistical outliers, but there's not much to debate.
Especially since I'm rather "meh" about the discussion and actually pondering yet something else that can't be fully answered.
It's those who believe in free will. It especially puzzles and tantalizes me when someone firmly believes in free will while simultaneously accepting there are many constraints to this will. Such an illogical position is most curious.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's those who believe in free will. It especially puzzles and tantalizes me when someone firmly believes in free will while simultaneously accepting there are many constraints to this will. Such an illogical position is most curious.

I don't see anything illogical about having free will that is constrained. All that means is that we are not free to do anything we might want to do, and that makes logical sense because nothing in life is black and white. We cannot do everything we might want to do because we either don't have the ability or the capacity, or someone else interferes with our ability to do it, or we choose not to do it because we care more about someone else than ourselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see anything illogical about having free will that is constrained.

It's not free if it's constrained. The two are contradicting things.

All that means is that we are not free to do anything we might want to do,

A constrained will happens with mental illness. It's all the things our parents did when we were kids. It's our environment and those around us as we grow up. It's the environment we live in now. It's our hormones. It's diseases. Unknowingly drugged. Genetic predispositions. And we know the brain made a choice before we are aware even consciously aware. Researchers could actually predict what people would choose, and new what they would pick before the participants made their choice. Pavlov's dogs and classic and operant condition involve no free will. Manipulation cuts out free will. It's twin studies that consistently find identical twins are alike in behaviors and mannerisms as well as appearances. It is how our culture programs us to think of ourselves, express ourselves as masculine or feminine (and how we do that), how we go about doing things even requires us to just automatically take in a lot of information and adjust to it entirely free of conscious will or effort. It's so unlikely we have free will that I gauge the responses of those around me when I don't know what's going on. It is that these reactions are predictable in matching the circumstances that allow me to intellectualize what's going on. And because people react in predictable ways rather than ways that are free I am able to do this. It's saved me a lot of embarrassment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or whateversexuality, as we know that is not a choice. There is nothing free going on. It just happens. Like how it just happens we are sexual beings and social beings. We also don't really choose to acquire and learn a primary language as we develop as infants and toddlers. It just happens.

 

[danieldemol]

... what's the use in arguing about it?

Basically arguing predetermines that open minded people will reconsider in light of all the evidence.