Should we believe in Free Will?

[Willamena]

I'm not really arguing for or against determinism. Assuming determinism is true, for the sake of the argument, is it still better to believe in free will?

Would the truth, in this case be more harmful than the lie?

Since free will has done no harm so far, I would say not.

 

[Nakosis]

If the above statement is true then determinism is wrong. People can't wrongly become fatalistic, or think their efforts make no difference. Their thoughts, actions and feelings all have to be determined. There is no wrong and no efforts make any difference in determinism.

The difference between fatalism and determinism seems to be the allowance for some kind of wiggle room as long as the wiggle room isn't considered free will.

What I'm seeing though is determinists, in their desire to avoid fatalism can't without allowing for some type of agent causality.

Determinism is not fatalism because...

Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.

Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".

So there's a cause for everything, but just because there is a necessary cause doesn't mean a necessary outcome.

Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events.

Determinism - Wikipedia

IOW any existent combination of causes have only one possible outcome.

Causal determinism seems to allow the necessary wiggle room.

 

[Willamena]

Sometimes the coin lands on it's edge !
Then it's anyone's choice !

That would be that third side of the fence that anyone can sit on?

 

[Willamena]

Yes I read it. Too problematic to warrant serious discussion.

As per the OP, think of it like this.

Billions of years of motion affecting motion, setting off incredibly complex waves of cause and effect spreading out nearly infinitely until at some point in the relatively recent past all of that stopped, but just for us.

That sir is a very extraordinary claim.

Why did it stop? Free will is not described in it stopping. Free will, as self-determination, is better described in the complex waves producing an emergent pattern.

 

[Thief]

Belief can change our lives? But, are we free to choose what we believe?

.

sorry to be here soooooo late....but....

yes...you are free to believe what you will
(freewill)

and free to suffer the consequence

you could then say.....all is fixed and the future happens
but that follows the deed of your hand

if your hand does anything...it's because
you thought you should ....or
you felt like it

 

[Willamena]

Seems to me it's hard to escape a need for indeterminism, at least the belief in it, for the sake of civilization.

Free will is not properly described as indeterminism, which is a term that arose in quantum physics and should be reserved for events whose cause is not specified; and it's not randomness as some people would seem to believe. It's not something from nothing. It's just self-determination, and the only reasonable arguments against it are those that strike at the notion of self.

 

[shunyadragon]

When it ccomes mes to free will and determinism both are true. We know that causality takes precedence however we also have the ability to see and predict different futures and paths. It’s this knowledge that really takes precedence, so to say it is more knowledge of determinism that gives real choices, knowing doesn’t take away options it leaves them open. It’s basically saying that determinism is a tool that can be used in our advantage with an ability to see and predict different futures. That’s what I think Sam Harris is getting at. Choices make a difference and knowing their causality doesn’t change that but it is true we can’t change the past which is the only place that determinism has us in its grips.

Actually determinism does not let us get away in the future either, The same laws of nature, and the consequences of the outcomes of the chain of cause and effect events limit our options of free will in the future as they did in the past.

 

[bobhikes]

The difference between fatalism and determinism seems to be the allowance for some kind of wiggle room as long as the wiggle room isn't considered free will.

What I'm seeing though is determinists, in their desire to avoid fatalism can't without allowing for some type of agent causality.

Determinism is not fatalism because...

Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.

Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".

So there's a cause for everything, but just because there is a necessary cause doesn't mean a necessary outcome.

Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events.

Determinism - Wikipedia

IOW any existent combination of causes have only one possible outcome.

Causal determinism seems to allow the necessary wiggle room.

Sounds like a religious belief.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The truth is that regardless of where we say we stand we all still believe in free will.

I do not. I am not a determinist, but things such as culture and genetic dispositions and mental illnesses prove free will does not exist.

 

[Willamena]

I do not. I am not a determinist, but things such as culture and genetic dispositions and mental illnesses prove free will does not exist.

In what way?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Free Will? You are free to believe in it or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Free Will? You are free to believe in it or not.

Not so simple. The existence of Free Will is not dependent on whether we believe in it or not.

Libertarian Free Will is not a reasonable nor viable alternative. If we have 'Free Will' it is a matter of possible degree and the nature of our decision making process.

 

[Willamena]

Not so simple. The existence of Free Will is not dependent on whether we believe in it or not.

Libertarian Free Will is not a reasonable nor viable alternative. If we have 'Free Will' it is a matter of possible degree and the nature of our decision making process.

And yet, you either have freedom or you don't.

 

[Stevicus]

According to studies, belief in determinism can cause both immoral behavior and general unhappiness. Is it then better to believe in free will even if it is a lie?

Or is Sam Harris right? Is it better to accept the "truth" (according to scientific understanding) of determinism.

When people hear there is no free will, they wrongly become fatalistic; they think their efforts will make no difference. But this is a mistake. People are not moving toward an inevitable destiny; given a different stimulus (like a different idea about free will), they will behave differently and so have different lives. If people better understood these fine distinctions, Harris believes, the consequences of losing faith in free will would be much less negative than Vohs’s and Baumeister’s experiments suggest.

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will

Belief can change our lives? But, are we free to choose what we believe?

Seems to me it's hard to escape a need for indeterminism, at least the belief in it, for the sake of civilization.

I never really could get my head around "free will." I believe in freedom of choice, but I see that more as a political view than a religious one.

It seems that a good part of the human condition - at least in terms of what drives and motivates people - revolves around things we can't control. Our lives are finite. We need food, water, and air to survive. We need 6 to 8 hours of sleep every night. For the first few years of life, we're utterly helpless and dependent on others for sustenance and knowledge of the world. Whatever "will" we eventually develop is strongly influenced from these early years.

I think free will also promotes the idea that "if I make good choices, then good things will happen for me." In a religious sense, the promise is that "good will" leads to an afterlife in Heaven, while "ill will" can lead to an afterlife in Hell. And it's supposedly within the power of the individual to choose one or the other.

In terms of civilization, people might make good and moral choices for society as long as they believe that there is some measure of "reward" for doing so. That may be the point where some people lose their faith, if they try to live an honest and moral life, yet bad things still happen to them. They don't see any "reward." This may promote unhappiness and immoral behavior, if enough people believe that immoral behavior has more rewards than moral behavior.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet, you either have freedom or you don't.

Still needs further explanation. I can easily say there is the 'possibility' of limited free will in the philosophy of compatibilism, and also say we do not have 'freedom.'

I can also say the result of the outcomes of the chain of cause and effect events further limits our choices in the future.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In what way?

Religion and gender norms/rules are to major areas were social influence predetermines much of an individual; mental illnesses determines someone within a predictable range for a given illness. There are so many different things that effect us, and predispose us to certain behaviors and tendencies, that nothing that resembles free will can be said to exist. "Operating parameters" seems to be a more suitable term.

 

[Curious George]

I do not. I am not a determinist, but things such as culture and genetic dispositions and mental illnesses prove free will does not exist.

Your posts indicate otherwise. But how does one evaluate proof?

 

[Curious George]

Religion and gender norms/rules are to major areas were social influence predetermines much of an individual; mental illnesses determines someone within a predictable range for a given illness. There are so many different things that effect us, and predispose us to certain behaviors and tendencies, that nothing that resembles free will can be said to exist. "Operating parameters" seems to be a more suitable term.

Ahh so you just object to free will in name alone?

 

[shunyadragon]

I never really could get my head around "free will." I believe in freedom of choice, but I see that more as a political view than a religious one.

I have difficulty with the options of a 'political view or religious view' since by the nature of religions and politics this can cover a wide range of different beliefs and views with a healthy dose of opinions.

I prefer understanding human will in terms scientific determinism, and despite many claims and fears it does not negate human free will and consider humans robotic without human free will entirely.

It seems that a good part of the human condition - at least in terms of what drives and motivates people - revolves around things we can't control. Our lives are finite. We need food, water, and air to survive. We need 6 to 8 hours of sleep every night. For the first few years of life, we're utterly helpless and dependent on others for sustenance and knowledge of the world. Whatever "will" we eventually develop is strongly influenced from these early years.

More true than your following would indicate,

I think free will also promotes the idea that "if I make good choices, then good things will happen for me." In a religious sense, the promise is that "good will" leads to an afterlife in Heaven, while "ill will" can lead to an afterlife in Hell. And it's supposedly within the power of the individual to choose one or the other.

This where religious presuppositions cloud the reality of human decision making process.

In terms of civilization, people might make good and moral choices for society as long as they believe that there is some measure of "reward" for doing so. That may be the point where some people lose their faith, if they try to live an honest and moral life, yet bad things still happen to them. They don't see any "reward." This may promote unhappiness and immoral behavior, if enough people believe that immoral behavior has more rewards than moral behavior.

The above is a bit too idealistic to be real.

The reality is 'pragmatism and opportunism rules' in our decision making process more than our since of right and wrong, or reward and punishment in the after life.

 

[Willamena]

Still needs further explanation. I can easily say there is the 'possibility' of limited free will in the philosophy of compatibilism, and also say we do not have 'freedom.'

I can also say the result of the outcomes of the chain of cause and effect events further limits our choices in the future.

I don't know what the first part means. And the freedom to choose is not a freedom of options.