More about free will

[Straw Dog]

Freewill doesn't exists because everything that happens, including what we, do is caused; therefore, we can only do what prior causes have dictated that we do. There is no such thing as choice. And, if we have no control over what we do we shouldn't be held responsible for it---think of the mental deficiency defense in our courts.

The argument is weak for a number of reasons. Everything we do is determined by causes, but many of those causes are largely internalized. Without consciousness, there is only undifferentiated being. Our intentions craft a situation in a self or life-serving way, hence internalizing. We are responsible for situations that consciousness causes by its mere presence. A determined choice is still a choice. Whether conscious or subconscious, we are still accountable for behavior as a personal expression.

Another flaw is that the assumptions are based on partial or relative identification. There are no isolated or separate 'individuals'. Personal expression also expresses the immense activity of totality. Identifying and acting with the totality of life is true authenticity.

 

[Skwim]

The argument is weak for a number of reasons. Everything we do is determined by causes, but many of those causes are largely internalized. Without consciousness, there is only undifferentiated being. Our intentions craft a situation in a self or life-serving way, hence internalizing.

And everyone of those intentions and internalization were the result of a series of cause/effect events.

We are responsible for situations that consciousness causes by its mere presence.

So how do you place responsibility for events that had to occur; that were the inevitable result of prior events? Do you hold a rock responsible for where it lies? Responsibility only has meaning where one could have done differently, and lacking freewill one can't do such a thing.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty

[ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee] plural re·spon·si·bil·i·ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.
(emphasis mine)


​

A determined choice is still a choice.

This is like saying that the living dead are still dead, a false fact is still a fact, or boneless ribs are still ribs. "Determined choice" is an oxymoron.

Whether conscious or subconscious, we are still accountable for behavior as a personal expression.

But were not talking about expressions. We're talking about why holding one responsible for things they could not help doing is illogical. "if we have no control over what we do we shouldn't be held responsible for it." Of course, if you can come up with a reasonable argument for why we should, I'd be happy to read it.

Another flaw is that the assumptions are based on partial or relative identification.

Sorry, but you'll have to explain what you mean by partial and relative identification in the context here.

There are no isolated or separate 'individuals'.

And the relevance of this is, what?

Personal expression also expresses the immense activity of totality. Identifying and acting with the totality of life is true authenticity.

Now you're just babbling.

 

[Straw Dog]

And everyone of those intentions and internalization were the result of a series of cause/effect events.

Which informed the very expressions of life we feel like we can judge.

So how do you place responsibility for events that had to occur; that were the inevitable result of prior events? Do you hold a rock responsible for where it lies? Responsibility only has meaning where one could have done differently, and lacking freewill one can't do such a thing.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty

[ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee] plural re·spon·si·bil·i·ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management.
(emphasis mine)
​

Internal causes are within one's control.
​

But were not talking about expressions. We're talking about why holding one responsible for things they could not help doing is illogical. "if we have no control over what we do we shouldn't be held responsible for it." Of course, if you can come up with a reasonable argument for why we should, I'd be happy to read it.

We are all inescapable expressions of life. We concur that it may be illogical to isolate 'individuals' for punishment, but they could have acted differently since there is always a certain degree of control over internal causes. Self-determination is still a determinism.

Sorry, but you'll have to explain what you mean by partial and relative identification in the context here.

Sorry, but cannot easily explain at present due to limitations in language. Let me gather my thoughts and get back to you.

Are you at all familiar with meditation?

 

[Skwim]

Internal causes are within one's control.

Not really, because the control is dictated by the sequence of cause/effect events leading up to it.

We are all inescapable expressions of life. We concur that it may be illogical to isolate 'individuals' for punishment, but they could have acted differently since there is always a certain degree of control over internal causes. Self-determination is still a determinism.

Not if their actions were dictated by the cause/effect events leading up to them, which happens to be the case. Things either happen because they are the end result of the causes that led up to them or they are entirely random. In either case it leaves no room for freewill. You did X instead of Y because you could do no differently. To do Y would have entailed a series of cause/effect events different than what lead to X, but they weren't so you had to do X.

Sorry, but cannot easily explain at present due to limitations in language. Let me gather my thoughts and get back to you.

Are you at all familiar with meditation?

Only that I know what it is on a nonparticipating level.

 

[factseeker88]

Not really, because the control is dictated by the sequence of cause/effect events leading up to it.


Not if their actions were dictated by the cause/effect events leading up to them, which happens to be the case. Things either happen because they are the end result of the causes that led up to them or they are entirely random. In either case it leaves no room for freewill. You did X instead of Y because you could do no differently. To do Y would have entailed a series of cause/effect events different than what lead to X, but they weren't so you had to do X.

Are you a determinist or did you figure it out by yourself?

“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Murder still says a lot about an individual's mental processes. Lack of free will doesn't excuse a murderer from containment or extermination anymore than lack of free will excuses a forest fire from being put out.

If we have no free will, and the murder had no choice in the matter of killing someone, then the members of the jury would have no choice in whether or not they find him guilty.

If none of us have free will, then we can't meaningfully discuss the possibility of holding others responsible for their lack of free will. The murderer will do what he does, the jury will do what it does - neither have any choice or responsibility for their actions.

 

[factseeker88]

If we have no free will, and the murder had no choice in the matter of killing someone, then the members of the jury would have no choice in whether or not they find him guilty.

If none of us have free will, then we can't meaningfully discuss the possibility of holding others responsible for their lack of free will. The murderer will do what he does, the jury will do what it does - neither have any choice or responsibility for their actions.

True, nobody has responsibility, including murderers, but laws that punish them give us the illusion of feeling safe and secure.

:no::no::no:

“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If we have no free will, and the murder had no choice in the matter of killing someone, then the members of the jury would have no choice in whether or not they find him guilty.

If none of us have free will, then we can't meaningfully discuss the possibility of holding others responsible for their lack of free will. The murderer will do what he does, the jury will do what it does - neither have any choice or responsibility for their actions.

Perhaps "excuse" was the wrong word. Lack of free will doesn't make murder irrelevant. Legal systems can continue to function (without double-think) if shifted to a rehabilitation system rather than a retributive system.

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps "excuse" was the wrong word. Lack of free will doesn't make murder irrelevant. Legal systems can continue to function (without double-think) if shifted to a rehabilitation system rather than a retributive system.

But rehabilitation is no less a correction.

Edit: That there is a finger pointed at an individual who is to be placed in rehabilitation is sufficient laying of responsibility on that individual.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But rehabilitation is no less a correction.

A correction but a more effective one. Punishment assumes the person has acted solely of their own volition and therefore punishment will (somehow) deter further crime, despite actual data gathered about recidivism.

Rehabilitation assumes people are the product of circumstances and must be given better methods of acting in society. In other words, reprogramming. This method works much better than retribution as far as recidivism goes.

Edit: That there is a finger pointed at an individual who is to be placed in rehabilitation is sufficient laying of responsibility on that individual.

We recall toys and cars all the time for defects. Are we laying responsibility on the item for failing?

 

[Willamena]

Just as an aside, Confucius makes a significant distinction by advocating shame in his writings as a self-correction, and neglecting entirely any concept of guilt and punishment. The person who has 'strayed' from the Way, or who is not jen although he knows li, feels the shame that puts him back on track.

 

[Willamena]

We recall toys and cars all the time for defects. Are we laying responsibility on the item for failing?

That is the manufacturer taking responsibility--free will is recognized in that the firm is not allowed to be excused from responsibility.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That is the manufacturer taking responsibility--free will is recognized in that the firm is not allowed to be excused from responsibility.

And yet in this case the manufacturer cannot be contacted. Recall goes on regardless.

 

[Willamena]

And yet in this case the manufacturer cannot be contacted. Recall goes on regardless.

Who is recalling?
(Sorry, I probably missed some of the conversation.)

 

[Willamena]

With no free will in the picture, there is no one entity to take responsibility and own up to their part in the defects--to make the correction. I suppose the task is either assigned arbitarily as in a lottery, or a system is in place that aniticipates defects and a public service department is all set up to enact corrections?
It's looking quite mechanical.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

With no free will in the picture, there is no one entity to take responsibility and own up to their part in the defects--to make the correction. I suppose the task is either assigned arbitarily as in a lottery, or a system is in place that aniticipates defects and a public service department is all set up to enact corrections?
It's looking quite mechanical.

You're overthinking, and not in the clever way.

No one has to take responsibility for the error. The only thing people have to take responsibility for is the correction of the error, and really it could be anyone. We have a legal and criminal system whose functions are to diagnose and correct behavior. No one is assigned to work in these fields. People follow their natural desires and proclivities to become judges or cops or jailers or counselors.

In short, you're trying to pigeon-hole free will into a picture where none is needed in order to correct errors.

 

[Skwim]

Are you a determinist or did you figure it out by yourself?

I am a determinist, and I did "figure it out" by myself. There was absolutely no way I could have done otherwise.

 

[Sir Doom]

What does 'free' add to 'will' that it doesn't already have?

 

[Willamena]

No one has to take responsibility for the error. The only thing people have to take responsibility for is the correction of the error, and really it could be anyone.

Yes, that's the scenarios I described.

We have a legal and criminal system whose functions are to diagnose and correct behavior. No one is assigned to work in these fields. People follow their natural desires and proclivities to become judges or cops or jailers or counselors.

All very mechanical.

In short, you're trying to pigeon-hole free will into a picture where none is needed in order to correct errors.

I described the situation without free will.

 

[Willamena]

What does 'free' add to 'will' that it doesn't already have?

Literally nothing, except it provides a useful term in discussions about predestination.