Explain Freewill

[Charlie V]

That is not the question. The question is have you ever made a choice that was not forced on you by your biological self and social learned self?

And my environment.

I'm with Stairway. The answer is no.

These three things, biology/genetics, my development or "socially learned self" and environment, force my choices upon me.

If I had developed differently--had different genetics--or been in a different environment, I'm certain my many choices in life would have been different.

I think it's important to include environment. This also plays a role in our decisions. Take, a mundane decision but still a decision: What to wear today? My socially learned self, my genetics--and the weather outside--these will affect my choice.

It's impossible for me to make the choice outside of these things--because I am not outside of these things. I always bring my genetics with me, and my socially learned self with me, and my environment is out of my hands for the most part. These affect my choices, always.

Charlie

 

[mepalmer3]

These three things, biology/genetics, my development or "socially learned self" and environment, force my choices upon me.

If I had developed differently--had different genetics--or been in a different environment, I'm certain my many choices in life would have been different.

It's impossible for me to make the choice outside of these things--because I am not outside of these things. I always bring my genetics with me, and my socially learned self with me, and my environment is out of my hands for the most part. These affect my choices, always.

I think everyone is in agreement, that our biology/genetics and our environment plays a part in our decision making. I think "socially learned self" reduces to a combination of genetics/environment if you're a naturalist.

But there's an a priori assumption that there is nothing else that could influence us. You can only come to the conclusion that there is no "free will" if you both A) hold a naturalistic philosophy and B) ignore the science involved in consciousness that suggests otherwise.

I don't think it's a widely believed position, which many of you will somewhat rightly point out is irrellevant. but what is somewhat relevant is that millions of people attest to the fact that their hand wasn't forced. As mentioned there is a fair amount of scientific study done into understanding consciousness and there is quite a bit of it that points that we may in fact be more than purely our physical selves.

But as such, all we need to do is draw up a model, make some predictions, and observe them to be true consistantly.

 

[thomas100]

These three things, biology/genetics, my development or "socially learned self" and environment, force my choices upon me.

Charlie : What are the consequences of holding this belief on "blame". When you consider a rapist do you say his biology/genetics, development and "socially learned self" forced the choice to rape on him ?

 

[Stairway]

Charlie : What are the consequences of holding this belief on "blame". When you consider a rapist do you say his biology/genetics, development and "socially learned self" forced the choice to rape on him ?

It is easy for you and me to judge people. However, people from broken homes who have been sexually, physically and verbally assaulted for their entire lives, often times wind up leading less than exemplary lives. When, if they were brought up differently, they would have lead normal lives.

 

[thomas100]

It is easy for you and me to judge people. However, people from broken homes who have been sexually, physically and verbally assaulted for their entire lives, often times wind up leading less than exemplary lives. When, if they were brought up differently, they would have lead normal lives.

Thanks for the reply. I'd prefer it if you didn't assume what is easy for me. I don't think you really have any idea. I'm willing to accept that it is easy for you to judge people.

I think you miss my point. My point is not to deny that environment has any effect on people's behaviour. My point is that the argument presented by Charlie is that he has zero choice in how he behaves. If the view he presents is correct then there is no point in attaching ANY blame to a rapist for his actions regardless of his environment. This would include the rapist who wasn't from a broken home, wasn't abused or assaulted etc. Agree ?

 

[David Gould]

An interesting challenge with regard to free will is to think how you might have turned out if your circumstances had been different.

For example, if you had been born in Germany in 1921. The 20s were hard for Germans. You would have in all likelihood grown up struggling to survive, your father bitter about his experience in World War 1 and angry at what happened. Anti-semitisim was rife - and generally accepted. Hitler came to power in 1933. You would likely have served in the Hitler Youth, possibly joining the Nazi Party in 1939 and very likely being in the Wermacht - possibly even in the SS and in the Einsgrappen during the invasion of Soviet Russian.

Or maybe you would have been a civilian. You might have been at the Wannasee conference, perhaps providing technical advice on how best to construct large scale crematoriums. Or maybe you would have simply been a run of the mill German citizen, aware that the unionists, the gays, the communists, the socialists and the Jews were being rounded up and herded east but too busy surviving to worry about what was happening to a bunch of traitors, deviants and racial inferiors.

How would you have acted as a German in that time period? Why?

 

[mepalmer3]

An interesting challenge with regard to free will is to think how you might have turned out if your circumstances had been different.

What to me is even more interesting than speculating like that, is to look at a pair of identical twins who grew up in horrible, horrible conditions (abusive, alcoholic father, drug-using mother, ...). If the 2 people go to the same school, basically grow up together doing everything, but end up going very different ways in life, then there is sufficient reason to believe that they had something akin to free will. If the cards are REALLY stacked against us, and then we do what is NOT predicted, then there is very good evidence that we can indeed choose our own path.

 

[thomas100]

An interesting challenge with regard to free will is to think how you might have turned out if your circumstances had been different.

An alternative challenge would be to think in what other ways you might have turned out given your own past circumstances. Were there other choices you could have made, about career, school, jobs, religion ? Or is Charlie's view the correct one, that those choices were illusions and that the result was forced by your environment ?

 

[David Gould]

What to me is even more interesting than speculating like that, is to look at a pair of identical twins who grew up in horrible, horrible conditions (abusive, alcoholic father, drug-using mother, ...). If the 2 people go to the same school, basically grow up together doing everything, but end up going very different ways in life, then there is sufficient reason to believe that they had something akin to free will. If the cards are REALLY stacked against us, and then we do what is NOT predicted, then there is very good evidence that we can indeed choose our own path.

Not really. You see, minor variations - particular early in life (or even in the womb) - may well produce massive differences.

Human beings are incredibly complex systems, systems which respond to many, many different variables. It should come as no surprise that our predictions will fail us. What should be surprising if there is free will is that we can make any at all. After all, if we have free will why, for example, do men consistently commit violent crime more often than women?

 

[David Gould]

An alternative challenge would be to think in what other ways you might have turned out given your own past circumstances. Were there other choices you could have made, about career, school, jobs, religion ? Or is Charlie's view the correct one, that those choices were illusions and that the result was forced by your environment ?

Environment, biology and genetics are the things which force choices.

As an example, think about choices that you were never offered - maybe the choice to fly on a spaceship. Or think about choices that were offered to you in such a way that you obviously would only have chosen one - maybe the choice between doing something you absolutely hated and doing something that you did not mind.

If we had made different choices, we would be different. But I would argue that for us to have made different choices we would have already had to have been different at the time we made them.

 

[thomas100]

After all, if we have free will why, for example, do men consistently commit violent crime more often than women?

Because, we are affected by our environment. But saying we are affected by our environment is very different from saying we have no free will. For example, if somebody offers me chocolate cake or fruit cake, I do have natural desires/tastes that lead me towards choosing the chocolate cake. That is very different from saying that I could not have chosen the fruit cake.

 

[David Gould]

Because, we are affected by our environment. But saying we are affected by our environment is very different from saying we have no free will. For example, if somebody offers me chocolate cake or fruit cake, I do have natural desires/tastes that lead me towards choosing the chocolate cake. That is very different from saying that I could not have chosen the fruit cake.

If our will is free how can it be affected by the environment?

 

[Charlie V]

Charlie : What are the consequences of holding this belief on "blame". When you consider a rapist do you say his biology/genetics, development and "socially learned self" forced the choice to rape on him ?

Yes. Which is why they should be humanely treated within the prison system, which is where rapists, murderers and child molestors should be for the protection of society. I'm definitely for longer sentences--some of the sentencing is pitiful, the current system fails to protect the public from people who, sadly, have either genetically or socially been conditioned to horrific actions.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

I think you miss my point. My point is not to deny that environment has any effect on people's behaviour. My point is that the argument presented by Charlie is that he has zero choice in how he behaves. If the view he presents is correct then there is no point in attaching ANY blame to a rapist for his actions regardless of his environment. This would include the rapist who wasn't from a broken home, wasn't abused or assaulted etc. Agree ?

Well.. yes, there IS no point in attaching BLAME!

I don't consider a trial and a prison sentence "blame." Blame is useless finger-pointing.

Trials and prison sentences are about protecting society from people genetically or conditionally predispositioned to horrible or violent actions.

It would be nice if people could be rehabilitated as well, but I don't think science or medicine has been very affective in this area, though there are shining exceptions.

Charlie

P.S. No sane, rational person commits rape. If there were no environmental circumstances leading the person to this horrible state (broken home, molestation as a child, abusive parents, etc.) then there must certainly be a genetic predisposition, perhaps a brain defect which leads the person to violence. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm quite sure that normal, rational people do not commit rapes by making an intellectual decision to do so.

 

[thomas100]

If our will is free how can it be affected by the environment?

Because the choice may be presented by the enviroment but is still ours to make ( e.g. should I go outside even though it is raining. The choice is presented by the fact it is raining but the choice to go outside or not is still mine )

 

[Stairway]

In the case of it raining, your memory of your biological response to rain would be the determining factor.

 

[Socrastein]

1. Every choice is made for a reason (If we choose for no reason at all, that would hardly be a choice at all but rather random happenings)

2. Every reason for a choice must either have its own reason caused by another choice (I chose to ate the cake because I was hungry and I was hungry because I decided not to eat breakfast earlier) or be a factor outside the control of the choosing being.

3. If every reason for which we make a choice is the result of other reasons that were consequence of choice, then we get an infinite regress of choices which is not only logically absurd but also observably false.

4. If there can be no infinite regress of reasons that are choice-caused, then there must be reasons for which we do things that we have no control over, i.e. our genetic makeup, environmental factors, physical conditions of our body, etc.

Conclusion: Therefore, our choices are actually determined and any concept of "free-will" is contradictory and logically non-sensical.

 

[thomas100]

Yes, Socrastein it is a real problem. Your logic is good and yet it feels so wrong. Who wants to say that Hitler was just a product of his environment and that he had no choice other than to exterminate the Jews ? Which atheist wants to say that Christians have no choice other than to believe in the risen Christ ? Are these statements inevitable or do they point to a flaw in your argument ?

 

[thomas100]

In the case of it raining, your memory of your biological response to rain would be the determining factor.

No, you are still missing my point. I agree that the environment is a factor in decision making. I don't know how to say this in a way that is more clear.

The real question about free-will is not "is it raining" ( an observable fact ) but "do I have a choice regarding going out or staying in". Could I decide either way, or is there no real choice ? I say there is real choice. I challenge you to dissent that you have real choice in that situation.

 

[thomas100]

Well.. yes, there IS no point in attaching BLAME!

So, Christian Charlie, you don't believe in right and wrong ? Explain how that fits in with a Christian belief.

I don't consider a trial and a prison sentence "blame." Blame is useless finger-pointing.

Hmmmm. No blame is really useful. For example, when a criminal steals money from a bank, I really want to say he is wrong, not that his actions were inevitable based on his environment. I challenge you to disagree.

Trials and prison sentences are about protecting society from people genetically or conditionally predispositioned to horrible or violent actions.

No. If that was the case we would never imprison people who didn't pose a threat to society. Why imprison Martha Stewart for example ?

It would be nice if people could be rehabilitated as well, but I don't think science or medicine has been very affective in this area, though there are shining exceptions.

No, you can't have your cake and eat it Charlie. If there is no free-will then there can never be rehabilitation caused by good intentions of human beings, because there are no good intentions in your view, only inevitable consequences. What will be will be.

Charlie

P.S. No sane, rational person commits rape. If there were no environmental circumstances leading the person to this horrible state (broken home, molestation as a child, abusive parents, etc.) then there must certainly be a genetic predisposition, perhaps a brain defect which leads the person to violence. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm quite sure that normal, rational people do not commit rapes by making an intellectual decision to do so.

Your PS is a refutation of your own argument. In your view the normalness, sanity or rationality of a person is irrelevant to their actions. Their actions are just inevitable based on their environment.