Explain Freewill

[Socrastein]

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?

It may very well "feel wrong" but fortunately logic is not affected in any way by the consequences of its conclusions. We must accept any sound argument whether we "like it" or not.

And I have no problem saying Hitler was a product of his environment - I am able to suppress that human tendency that religion seems to encourage whether it likes to admit it or not: condemnation. I see no reason to blame or damn an "evil" man any more than I see reason to blame or damn someone who has the flu. They can't help it, and there's no reason to blame them - rather, do what you can to fix the problem and resist the urge to point fingers. This would mean either administering medicine and quarantining the sick guy, or imprisoning/killing Hitler. Both pose a threat to society, and this threat must and can be addressed without ever resorting to condemnation. So I see no problem with this as a consequence of the logic. I think it is a step toward a more compassionate society in fact.

And as an atheist, I fully realize that Christians (All humans of course) have no 'free will' to choose what they believe. Again, I don't blame them any more than some guy with the flu, I just do what I can to help them, because I personally see it as a problem.

When one logically examines the notion of "free-will" they will find that it is nonsensical, it doesn't even mean anything to us, anymore than a "square-circle" does. People seem to just inherently assume that they have and understand free-will, but that is the result of insufficient consideration of the proposition at hand. When it is sufficiently analyzed, it is shown to be an absurd concept and the conclusion is of course a deterministic universe in which there is determined choice, but no 'free-will'.

I think you confuse choice with "free-will". I can choose to go outside and play in the rain without that being a "free" choice (What on earth is a free choice anyway??) I choose to play in the rain because I think its fun, I think its fun because I like the feeling of wet clothes and the sound of thunder - however, do I choose to like the feeling of wet clothes or the sound of thunder? Absolutely not. However, if my enjoyment of these things is sufficiently strong and consequently creates a strong enough desire, and there is no stronger factors inhibiting my ability to go outside (Like prior engagements indoors, my being grounded, my legs being broken, etc.) then I will go outside and play in the rain.

What would a free choice even be? Does that mean that in any given situation I could choose otherwise? Like if I choose to go outside and play in the rain, would rewinding time permit one to see me actually choose to stay inside? If that is free will, then that is absurd - if there is no reason for the dissention between the two choices, then the choices are completely random and aren't even choices at all.

This is what I meant by my syllogism in which I pointed out that if every choice must be made with a reason, and sooner or later you come to a reason that you did not choose to have, then your choices are all determined and the idea of free-will doesn't even make any sense.

Either every choice is made for a reason or it isn't - if it is, then determinism of choice must logically be concluded lest we run into the absurdity of an infinite regression of reasons - but if it isn't, then choices are just random events and by definition that isn't even a choice at all.

So unless you openly dismiss logic, which would make you non-sensical entirely, you must accept that your choices are determined and you have no 'freedom' in them.

And Tommy boy, regarding your arguments against Charlie, they are completely baseless and unreasonable - I already pointed this out. Saying that you can only punish if you can blame people for their crimes is like saying you can only medicate if you can blame people for their illness

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I suggest subsuming the environmental/societal factors simply as perceptions. Perceptions either of the present situation or of past situations, which form your memories.


I wonder also how the free will advocates (except for compatibilists) get around the determinism/indeterminism dichotomy. If the former is true, at least for our brains, then it is indeed the perceptions and genetics that make you act in a specific way in a specific situation. If the latter is true, that would point to, a wee bit at lest, randomness.

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.

No "choice." Whatever "choice" means. To decide otherwise than you actually do, the situation would have to have been different. Either on your part, i.e. you have different memories of the past (that would mean your past would have to have been different). Or the external situation at hand.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Society agrees on what is right and wrong. If an individual turns out to behave in a way that the rest of the society thinks is wrong then society seeks out to either change that behaviour or to remove the individual who is behaving in an undesirable way.

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 ?

Punishment has a deterrence factor. The outlook to go to jail is a clear influence on peoples, I think you agree. Now what would you think would become of the deterrence if there were people who behaved against the law, and got away with it? The deterrence would lose its sting.

 

[Charlie V]

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

Tell me when I said that. I never said I don't believe in right and wrong, and for the record, I do.

There is no free will. That doesn't mean there's no right and wrong.

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.

Blame remains useless. Tell me the value of blame? Finger-pointing?

Because you "really want to say he is wrong"? What use is that? I can go around all day pointing at all the people I think are wrong, and saying "he is wrong," and that and a few dollars will get me a coffee at Starbucks!

Of course the actions are wrong, and the actions are also the result of his genetics, his experiences and his environment. If we don't get to the heart of why people commit crimes, we'll never be able to effectively combat crime.

Jesus said (and He said it of people doing something much worse than stealing money from a bank) "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

That is the point--people do wrong, but they don't know what they are doing. They are lead to wrongdoing by a lifetime of teaching, a lifetime of circumstances, genetic, environmental and social influences which lead them down a wrong path.

Do you really believe a bank robber would have committed the same crime, no matter what his upbringing, genetics, and environment? That if you could turn back time and change the circumstances of the robbers life, cause him to be raised in a loving family from infancy, changed his genetics (if that was the problem) and given him different circumstances in life, a different environment, he would have woken up the same day in that alternate universe and inexplicably gone and carried out the bank robbery plan?

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 ?

The specific question I was asked was about rape. The reply I gave was toward that circumstances.

Now, I don't know enough about the Martha Stewart case to comment. I wasn't in the jury, I didn't hear or see the testimony. My understanding is that her case had something to do with dishonest stock dealings--which is stealing; again, I don't know enough about the particulars in her case, for all I know she may be innocent and wrongly convicted, or not, I don't know enough to have an opinion. But don't think for a minute that people who steal do not harm society, albeit to a lesser extent than rape or murder, and from which we need to be protected. Theft is, indeed, a threat to our society.

There is also a need in such cases for rehabilitation and deterrance, which is possible--I stated that our choices are determined by our genetics, our upbringing and past, and our environment. The change of environment gives us new education which can be beneficial--but in that area, I really think we need to work on our system, to encourage more rehabilitation of prisoners.

As for deterrance, as I stated, we are lead by genetics, upbringing and environment. Deterrance works to some extent because the existance of a prison system is itself part of our environment, and knowledge of that is part of our upbringing. Unfortunately, often other factors in our genetics, upbringing and environment are the over-riding factors--otherwise, there would be no crime!

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.

When did I say there is no such thing as "good intentions?" Good intentions is not the same as free will. In fact, many people, lead by their genetics, their past experiences and their environment, become good intentioned people, and they can be effective with what they do.

There can certainly be rehabilitation because, while we cannot change the past, we can change the environment and we can provide new education which, hopefully, can create a new self-image for a person. Do not think that because our childhood is past that we do not continue to grow and learn, even unto old age. Your "upbringing" is the events of your past--today's present circumstances is tomorrow's "upbringing," though to a lesser extent than in early childhood.

I do think that in many cases rehabiliation is diffecult if not impossible. For the reason, certain crimes I believe should involve imprisonment without parole. I find it appauling that child molestors are released after only a few years--I feel that in most cases, they have too much psychological damage (and perhaps genetic damage) to ever be rehabilitated, and for the sake of the children they should not be released.

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.

By no means is my PS a refutation! Normalness, sanity and rationality are part of a person's make-up which results from genetics, upbringing and past experiences, as well as present environment.

Note, you changed it to "environment" only. Genetics. Past experiences. And environment. Those three.

Some are genetically predisposed, lead by upbringing and/or lead by environmental circumstances to being normal, rational and sane.

Some are even genetically predisposed, lead by upbringing and/or lead by environmental circumstances to greatness.

Some are genetically predisposed, lead by upbringing and/or lead by environmental circumstances to unfortunate wrongdoing. Wrongdoing. I never said "wrongdoing" doesn't exist.

The best we can hope to do is change their current environment and their upbringing from the present into the future, to restore them to rational, sane people. Sometimes, tragically, certain people have been so abused by life, or have specific genetic or physical damage to their brain, that they literally cannot be rehabilitated. In such cases, especially in the case of child molestors, child abusers and particularly violent offenders, we need to protect society from them because the children and people they harm, they are creating environments and circumstances in their life which might possibly lead them to continue the cycle.

Charlie

P.S. Hey debate fans!
How many strawmen can you find in thomas100's post?
I count at least three.

 

[Charlie V]

I found one more strawman, one I missed in my earlier reply:

only inevitable consequences. What will be will be.

I never said or implied anything about inevitability. I never said or implied "What will be will be."

I said there is no free will, and I said our choices are controlled by our upbringing, genetics and enviornment. Of those three, the only one that is unchangable is genetics--and even that, perhaps, with science can be changed. Certainly some genetic conditions can be treated with medication.

We can rehabilitate by providing different environment and different future upbringing and education. The most value, however, is recieved when such upbringing is started at an early age.

Charlie

 

[Stairway]

You do not choose your upbringing though, at least not in the early important years.

 

[David Gould]

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 )

That is not the question, although it answers part of it. However, why does being abused make you more likely to be an abuser, for example, if the will is free? If the will was free, we would never discover any correlations between environment and behaviour, or genetics and behaviour. But we do find these correlations. Why?

 

[mepalmer3]

That is not the question, although it answers part of it. However, why does being abused make you more likely to be an abuser, for example, if the will is free? If the will was free, we would never discover any correlations between environment and behaviour, or genetics and behaviour. But we do find these correlations. Why?

If we want to try to offer some positive evidence for there not being anything such as "Free Will", then perhaps correlations are a good a place to start as any. If there really isn't any free will, and we are purely a product of genetics and environment, then I would suspect a much tighter correlation between abuser and abused. Shouldn't we see something greater than 98% or so? Someone made up a figure guessing that there may be some bit of randomness (I don't recall if there was any reason to suggest why there might be any randomness though) and I think the figure was 5% or less. If we take a 5% chance that at any decision we might pull away from what would be predicted, then I think we can see that it becomes somewhat of a self-correcting problem (the randomness). If my dad abused me, then even if I 5 times out of a 100 don't continue the cycle of abuse, I'm still generally going to be very abusive. So we ought to in fact see extremely similar behavioral patterns between parents and kids.

And certainly the apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree. But we're not just talking about a few idiosyncrasies here, we're talking about the evolution of human behavior. In evolution we suspect that things happen on a very slow, very gradual change. So we should expect that in human behavior if it in fact the same mechanisms at work. But that's not what we see. We see a lot of people acting similar to their parents, but we see extremely radical change, complete rebellion at times. We see people change directions in their life for no apparent reason. So the empircal evidence seems much stronger that people are able to change their direction according to their own whim.

 

[David Gould]

If we want to try to offer some positive evidence for there not being anything such as "Free Will", then perhaps correlations are a good a place to start as any. If there really isn't any free will, and we are purely a product of genetics and environment, then I would suspect a much tighter correlation between abuser and abused. Shouldn't we see something greater than 98% or so? Someone made up a figure guessing that there may be some bit of randomness (I don't recall if there was any reason to suggest why there might be any randomness though) and I think the figure was 5% or less. If we take a 5% chance that at any decision we might pull away from what would be predicted, then I think we can see that it becomes somewhat of a self-correcting problem (the randomness). If my dad abused me, then even if I 5 times out of a 100 don't continue the cycle of abuse, I'm still generally going to be very abusive. So we ought to in fact see extremely similar behavioral patterns between parents and kids.

And certainly the apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree. But we're not just talking about a few idiosyncrasies here, we're talking about the evolution of human behavior. In evolution we suspect that things happen on a very slow, very gradual change. So we should expect that in human behavior if it in fact the same mechanisms at work. But that's not what we see. We see a lot of people acting similar to their parents, but we see extremely radical change, complete rebellion at times. We see people change directions in their life for no apparent reason. So the empircal evidence seems much stronger that people are able to change their direction according to their own whim.

I have already mentioned that human beings are very complex systems, systems which interact with other very complex systems (other humans) in a very large complex system (the environment).


However, ignoring that for a moment, if we had free will why would there be any correlations at all?

 

[mepalmer3]

I have already mentioned that human beings are very complex systems, systems which interact with other very complex systems (other humans) in a very large complex system (the environment).

However, ignoring that for a moment, if we had free will why would there be any correlations at all?

You have mentioned this before -- but it seems like it has always come out as:

1. We live in a very complex world and we're very complex ourselves. (we both agree)
2. Because we live in a complex world, we can't reliably predict anything.

And that might work for some folks, but we predict a huge number of other things in science all the time. And they're not in a different world. You just haven't offered any evidence for your idea. And on the contrary, we have billions of people who firmly believe they have the ability to make their own choices.

Evidence of NOT being able to choose and being affected by the environment and our genetics is our heart pumping. We don't get to choose that, it naturally happens. Breathing is the same way.

As to why there would be ANY correlations if there were free will. You're arguing against will that rebels against each other, not free will. Free will says that people may very well go along with what their parents or friends do. It also says they may choose to change directions -- sometimes going from one extreme to another.

 

[David Gould]

You have mentioned this before -- but it seems like it has always come out as:

1. We live in a very complex world and we're very complex ourselves. (we both agree)
2. Because we live in a complex world, we can't reliably predict anything.

And that might work for some folks, but we predict a huge number of other things in science all the time. And they're not in a different world. You just haven't offered any evidence for your idea. And on the contrary, we have billions of people who firmly believe they have the ability to make their own choices.

Evidence of NOT being able to choose and being affected by the environment and our genetics is our heart pumping. We don't get to choose that, it naturally happens. Breathing is the same way.

I never actually said 2, by the way. What I said was that human behaviour is difficult to reliably predict because it is extremely complicated - way more complicated than three-body gravity problems, even.

As to why there would be ANY correlations if there were free will. You're arguing against will that rebels against each other, not free will. Free will says that people may very well go along with what their parents or friends do. It also says they may choose to change directions -- sometimes going from one extreme to another.

If a person has free will are they more likely to go along with the crowd or go against the crowd or is it 50-50?

 

[mepalmer3]

I never actually said 2, by the way. What I said was that human behaviour is difficult to reliably predict because it is extremely complicated - way more complicated than three-body gravity problems, even.

Why is it more complicated than gravity?

If a person has free will are they more likely to go along with the crowd or go against the crowd or is it 50-50?

People seem to chose to go with the greatest influence on average, as probably both ideas (determinism and free will) would possibly predict. I still strongly believe that determinism predicts a MUCH higher rate of going along with the crowd, as we see everywhere else in science. There isn't any reason I've heard that suggests why this one area should be different.

But, we have the ability to observe our decision making process, by introspection. By introspection we can see directly see that we can choose to do this or that. If we can't trust what we see within ourselves to be true, then we certainly can't trust anything we see elsewhere to be true. And as such the absurdity of the conversation becomes rather boring for those seeking truth.

 

[David Gould]

Why is it more complicated than gravity?

Because of the vastly greater number of variables.

People seem to chose to go with the greatest influence on average, as probably both ideas (determinism and free will) would possibly predict.

If your will is free how can it be influenced at all?

I still strongly believe that determinism predicts a MUCH higher rate of going along with the crowd, as we see everywhere else in science. There isn't any reason I've heard that suggests why this one area should be different.

See above.

But, we have the ability to observe our decision making process, by introspection. By introspection we can see directly see that we can choose to do this or that. If we can't trust what we see within ourselves to be true, then we certainly can't trust anything we see elsewhere to be true. And as such the absurdity of the conversation becomes rather boring for those seeking truth.

I have never said that we do not make choices. I have simply said that these choices are not free.

I highly recommend you (or anyone else interested in the topic of free will) read, 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' by Daniel Wegner.

 

[mepalmer3]

As to why human behavior is more complex then gravity...

Because of the vastly greater number of variables.

But isn't the universe relatively constant in that more isn't being "added" to the universe? The number of variables involved with respect to gravity, (essentially all of the universe), ought to be the same with respect to human behavior if you take a pure naturalist approach, which would also be all of the universe.

What are the extra variables that are involved?

If your will is free how can it be influenced at all?

I must have erased this before I submitted. In the context of religious discussions (and as we're in christianforums), we take the normal meaning of the phrase "free will" to mean something akin to people being free or allowed to make their own choice. I don't know of any theologians who have tried to make the case for "will that has no external influence". If you're trying to discuss that, then you may want to start calling it "will with no external influences" rather than the more popular phrase "free will" which most people take to mean something else.

I have never said that we do not make choices. I have simply said that these choices are not free.

If we're both saying that we are allowed to make whatever choice we want to, that we are influenced, and we can completely ignore the influence and choose absolutely against or absolutely in accordance with the surrounding influences, and choose at any place between the 2, then we are in agreement on everything except the semantics of the phrase "free will".

Perhaps "unimpeded will" is better. Nothing can stop us from choosing what we want to choose. Influence is irrelavent.

This is quite different from the laws of gravity where we see something and we know it has to fall. There doesn't seem to be any break in those laws. With respect to the law of human nature, we know we ought to behave in certain ways, and we also know that we don't in fact behave that way as often as we should. We know these to be the basic facts of our own human behavior law. So sure, this sort of "unimpeded will" or "free to choose anything, but still influenced" is accurate with what I'm describing.

 

[David Gould]

As to why human behavior is more complex then gravity...

But isn't the universe relatively constant in that more isn't being "added" to the universe? The number of variables involved with respect to gravity, (essentially all of the universe), ought to be the same with respect to human behavior if you take a pure naturalist approach, which would also be all of the universe.

What are the extra variables that are involved?

The complexity of a human being.

If I can give a couple of examples, when we look at the gravitational interaction of two bodies, we can effectively ignore the rest of the universe's gravity as it is too far away to have any but the most minute of effects - the r squared law sees to that. As an example, at birth the delivering doctor has a higher gravitational effect on you than Jupiter does.

We can also ignore things like the political situation in Iran when examining gravitational effects. Or the latest fashions on show in Paris. In fact, we can ignore the vast majority - if not all - of human interactions entirely.


When we look at the interactions of human beings, humans can do many, many more things for a start - I can talk, walk, jump, write et cetera. Thus, picking which one I will do is hard simply because there is such a big list. On top of that, any individual human continues to change throughout their life. It is like having a computer program which keeps getting altered depending on what input is received.

Input is the next vital factor. The possible input that a human can receive is vast. The slightest difference can result in a completely different response. (Think about the difference in responses if a traffic light is green compared to if it is red, for example - tiny difference in input; big difference in response.)

Human interaction is way more complicated than graviational interaction.

I must have erased this before I submitted. In the context of religious discussions (and as we're in christianforums), we take the normal meaning of the phrase "free will" to mean something akin to people being free or allowed to make their own choice. I don't know of any theologians who have tried to make the case for "will that has no external influence". If you're trying to discuss that, then you may want to start calling it "will with no external influences" rather than the more popular phrase "free will" which most people take to mean something else.

Why, if people are allowed to make their own choices, do statistical correlations appear in behaviour?

This is the problem I am getting at: there is a statistical correlation between being abused and being an abuser. If being an abuser in these cases was not caused by being abused, why is there such a correlation? In other words, why is it more difficult for people to choose somethings when certain input is imposed on them?

If we're both saying that we are allowed to make whatever choice we want to, that we are influenced, and we can completely ignore the influence and choose absolutely against or absolutely in accordance with the surrounding influences, and choose at any place between the 2, then we are in agreement on everything except the semantics of the phrase "free will".

Except we are not. We (each of us being a complex human system) make choices. They are not free. Think of a computer program - fed with certain input it runs through some routines and then takes an action. This is exactly what we do, except we call that taking of an action the making of a choice.

Perhaps "unimpeded will" is better. Nothing can stop us from choosing what we want to choose. Influence is irrelavent.

If influence is irrelevent, why does it in fact influence us? What is the mechanism that allows it to influence us without impeding? This is the key point that I do not understand.

This is quite different from the laws of gravity where we see something and we know it has to fall. There doesn't seem to be any break in those laws. With respect to the law of human nature, we know we ought to behave in certain ways, and we also know that we don't in fact behave that way as often as we should. We know these to be the basic facts of our own human behavior law. So sure, this sort of "unimpeded will" or "free to choose anything, but still influenced" is accurate with what I'm describing.

I do not know what you mean by 'ought'.

 

[Socrastein]

You guys who are arguing for free will must have either missed David's reference to three-body gravity, or simply didn't know what he meant by that. He was referring to a classic example of how science and mathematics in its infant state right now can't even accurately describe bodies in motion under the influence of gravity beyond two objects. We can accurately plot the motion of two bodies acting on eachother gravitationally, but any more than that, including only three, and we lose tremendous power of prediction. Trying to accurately describe 3 gravitational bodies in motion is far too complicated for science and math right now - so if we can't even do that, it is pointless and absurd to demand that we accurately predict human behavior, which is subject to COUNTLESS factors, many of which we aren't even aware of. We are barely scratching the surface, for example, of exactly when and how genetic code plays a role in our actions and personality. That's just one factor that will give us problems probably for all time.

Leaving that aside, I'm curious why I'm not seeing my argument being addressed. Its being conveniently ignored by the proponents of free will it seems, as they would rather argue straw men fallacies like the above mentioned impossibility of prediction and understanding of human behavior.

Why don't the free will proponents give us a definition of exactly what free will is, and specifically differentiate it from the causal will I asserted was the only logical possibility in my opening argument.

Be sure to explain how will can act without any reason to act, or if not that then explain how there can be an infinite regress of chosen reasons for action.

If this cannot be accomplished, I will be confident that my logic is solid and my syllogism sound, in which case there can be no contesting my conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, it is a nonsensical concept.

By the way mepalmer, it is wholly irrelevent that billions of people think they have free will - are you aware that this is one of the weakest, and most common, logical fallacies known as an appeal to majority? It doesn't help your case one bit, but in fact has the opposite effect - rendering your accredited understanding of reason to be questioned.

 

[thomas100]

Socrastein, thanks for your reply. It may well be that your debating ability is beyond me but I'm happy to continue the debate. Hopefully I can learn something from your ideas.

It may very well "feel wrong" but fortunately logic is not affected in any way by the consequences of its conclusions. We must accept any sound argument whether we "like it" or not.

Must we really do that ? Why ?

And I have no problem saying Hitler was a product of his environment

In fact, by your argument don't you think you have no choice other than to say he was a product of his environment.

- I am able to suppress that human tendency that religion seems to encourage whether it likes to admit it or not: condemnation. I see no reason to blame or damn an "evil" man any more than I see reason to blame or damn someone who has the flu. They can't help it, and there's no reason to blame them - rather, do what you can to fix the problem and resist the urge to point fingers.

OK, so this is where you lose me. In what sense can you "fix the problem or resist an urge". Doesn't your lack of free-will mean that all you can do is respond in a mechanical way to your environment ?

This would mean either administering medicine and quarantining the sick guy, or imprisoning/killing Hitler. Both pose a threat to society, and this threat must and can be addressed without ever resorting to condemnation. So I see no problem with this as a consequence of the logic. I think it is a step toward a more compassionate society in fact.

Again, I don't see how your view leads you to conclude that a threat "must be addressed". What does that mean ? Why must it be addressed. Wasn't it completely inevitable given the environment, in your view. Isn't the logical conclusion of what you say that Hitler was inevitable from the very beginning of time and that nothing anyone could have done would have stopped it ?

And as an atheist, I fully realize that Christians (All humans of course) have no 'free will' to choose what they believe. Again, I don't blame them any more than some guy with the flu, I just do what I can to help them, because I personally see it as a problem.

Again, doesn't your argument really lead to the conclusion that there is nothing that you can do to help. All you can do is respond to what is around you. This is what I mean when I say your belief seems to be "what will be will be". Yet your arguments "do what I can to help", "must be addressed", "fix the problem" seem to resist that notion ? Help me understand why.

When one logically examines the notion of "free-will" they will find that it is nonsensical, it doesn't even mean anything to us, anymore than a "square-circle" does. People seem to just inherently assume that they have and understand free-will, but that is the result of insufficient consideration of the proposition at hand. When it is sufficiently analyzed, it is shown to be an absurd concept and the conclusion is of course a deterministic universe in which there is determined choice, but no 'free-will'.

I don't think I have understood free-will. I think it's still a mystery to me, but I don't want to dismiss it out of hand.

I think you confuse choice with "free-will". I can choose to go outside and play in the rain without that being a "free" choice (What on earth is a free choice anyway??) I choose to play in the rain because I think its fun, I think its fun because I like the feeling of wet clothes and the sound of thunder - however, do I choose to like the feeling of wet clothes or the sound of thunder? Absolutely not. However, if my enjoyment of these things is sufficiently strong and consequently creates a strong enough desire, and there is no stronger factors inhibiting my ability to go outside (Like prior engagements indoors, my being grounded, my legs being broken, etc.) then I will go outside and play in the rain.

Here is the heart of the issue. It is clear that we do have choices. And it is clear ( at least to me ) that we appear to ourselves to have the ability to choose from several options ( shall I go out in the rain, or stay inside ). The question in hand is at that moment of choice is there an "I" that is making a choice between the options "free-will" ( I could have chosen either option ) or is there an inevitable consequence based on external inputs to a mechanism ( the brain ) "no free-will".

What would a free choice even be? Does that mean that in any given situation I could choose otherwise? Like if I choose to go outside and play in the rain, would rewinding time permit one to see me actually choose to stay inside? If that is free will, then that is absurd - if there is no reason for the dissention between the two choices, then the choices are completely random and aren't even choices at all.

This is what I meant by my syllogism in which I pointed out that if every choice must be made with a reason, and sooner or later you come to a reason that you did not choose to have, then your choices are all determined and the idea of free-will doesn't even make any sense.

Either every choice is made for a reason or it isn't - if it is, then determinism of choice must logically be concluded lest we run into the absurdity of an infinite regression of reasons - but if it isn't, then choices are just random events and by definition that isn't even a choice at all.

So unless you openly dismiss logic, which would make you non-sensical entirely, you must accept that your choices are determined and you have no 'freedom' in them.

I'm not disputing your logic, actually I don't even understand it. Just saying that the reality of my existence speaks against the outcome of the logic.

Don't you feel at all uncomfortable at the prospect of logic proving your everyday experience of making choices to be unreasonable ?

 

[thomas100]

That is not the question, although it answers part of it. However, why does being abused make you more likely to be an abuser, for example, if the will is free? If the will was free, we would never discover any correlations between environment and behaviour, or genetics and behaviour. But we do find these correlations. Why?

I don't think it necessarily follows that free-will means no correlations between enviroment and behaviour etc. Free-will does not deny that the environment has an effect on the choices people make but it does affirm that they are making real choices, not illusionary choices. The young man in the ghetto who chooses to not takes drugs, in my view, has a real choice to follow along with his environment or to take a stand against it.

 

[Socrastein]

Tommy:

First off, the reason I said we must accept the conclusion of my logic if it is sound is because by definition a sound argument is one that you cannot logically deny. Now, if you are asking "Why should we care about truth?" then I would say you don't have to, but keep in mind that truth is a correspondence to reality, so if you are neglecting truth you are neglecting reality, and I think that would make you crazy by definition, not to mention stupid.

As for fatalism:
Whether or not my choice to help someone in need, or stop someone who I think needs to be stopped, is determined makes no difference to whether or not I can or should make it. The whole illusion of 'free will' is that we cannot understand all the factors that go into determining our decisions: this is exactly why we seem to think we freely choose, whereas perhaps an outside observer with sufficient understanding of our biological makeup and the effects of input on our minds, would clearly see that everything we think or do is mechanical and predictable.

Sort of the way a caveman would think a Dell Desktop computer is magical, only because he doesn't have the insight to grasp all the components and factors that go into making it nothing more than a complicated machine.

The main consequence of determinism is of course that my choices "will be" whatever it is that they will be, and nothing will change that. However, I do not know what "will be", and thus I am 'free' to attempt to influence my environment and other people in whatever way I believe will be beneficial. For example, I can try and stop someone from getting addicted to drugs because I don't actually know if it will work or not - it is of course already determined how my actions will effect them and how this will determine what they do, but I am not privy to the factors involved and thus all I can do is try and see if it works. If I somehow knew that nothing I could do would help them in any way, then I wouldn't bother: but I don't know that, so I will choose to try and help them because I care for them.

I believe everything is causally determined, but that doesn't mean I believe everything is made pointless and all action is worthless. Lucky for me I am wholly ignorant of the vast amount of factors that determine what will happen, so as far as I'm concerned everything is unfolding in front of me and I have the power to influence it - and I will attempt to do just that. Rather than say "Well, whether or not Bobby gets addicted to drugs is going to happen either way, so there's nothing I can do" I say "Well, I'm not sure whether or not Bobby is going to actually become addicted, so I'm going to do whatever I can to try and make sure he doesn't".

Don't you feel at all uncomfortable at the prospect of logic proving your everyday experience of making choices to be unreasonable ?

How does the fact that my choices are determined make it unreasonable to choose? You'll have to support this assertion before I can attempt to argue against it, because right now its quite baseless.

Socrastein, thanks for your reply. It may well be that your debating ability is beyond me but I'm happy to continue the debate. Hopefully I can learn something from your ideas.

Nonsense, I consider myself to be quite ignorant and you shouldn't give me anymore credit than you would give to an idiot - hence my avatar.

 

[thomas100]

OK, so my weak mind is going to have a go at following the argument...

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)

So if I flip a coin and shout "heads", what is the reason for the choice ? Isn't that a random choice with no reason ? Why do you want to exclude such choices from your argument ?