Free Will

[quatona]

I see no reason to asume my choice are being made by someone other than me and in the scenario I think the only convincing answer is he decided differently that time.

Neither do I see a reason to assume that my choices are being made by someone other than me. Rather I see no reason to assume that the idea of "choice" has any substance.
Unfortunately the answer "he decided differently" is not really cutting it. The question would be: Why did he decided differently? Did he have a reason, a basis for this decision? Where did he get that from (the other, exact same person didn´t have it, after all)? Is deciding this way (and not the other) due to his nature? Or is it complete random?

 

[quatona]

I chose to respond and point out that it unworkable to have to determine the extent we are responsbile for all our decisions because we don't have the ability to do that.

And for simplicity´s sake we assume that everyone is acting out of free will?

 

[elman]

Neither do I see a reason to assume that my choices are being made by someone other than me. Rather I see no reason to assume that the idea of "choice" has any substance.
Unfortunately the answer "he decided differently" is not really cutting it. The question would be: Why did he decided differently? Did he have a reason, a basis for this decision? Where did he get that from (the other, exact same person didn´t have it, after all)? Is deciding this way (and not the other) due to his nature? Or is it complete random?

I don't like the idea it is completely random because that takes the one deciding out of the picture again. If I don't have a choice and no one else is making my decisions, who is making them? I assume you would answer No one. But that does not explain how and why these decisions are occuring. Again, having a reason to do something does not force you to do that. It may influence you to do that, but you still have the ability to say no even in spite of that reason for doing I am not going to do it.--I know we have beat this dead horse to death many times.

 

[elman]

And for simplicity´s sake we assume that everyone is acting out of free will?

No we do not assume that if there is evidence that someone is not acting out of free will. That is the reason criminals can defend themselves on mental incompetency. But if we assumed everyone had no free will and no responsibility, then our entire civilization with all its laws would collapse.

 

[quatona]

heh thankyou for putting it simpler for me

yes - Social and physical rather than spiritual. Though its still a philosophy of mine.
Well i cant see it from a religious/spiritual sense so i have no idea. I guess we do have free will - but i still think the limiting factors (social and physical still) apply.

When saying "social concept" I meant the it in a definition along the lines of "unrestricted by direct, immediate (physical) constraint inflicted upon by another person."
I have never found that a convincing definition to work from. Even if someone points a gun at my head and says "Do this or I will shoot you." this would not take the option of not doing it away. At best it would be a scale measuring the sum of all social pressures that the person in question is exposed to.

Anyways, since I see no space for "free will" due to the conditions of our phyiscal existence, it would be impossible to get "free will" "spiritually". At best I could conclude that our lack of "free will" is not caused by the "spiritual "(whatever that may mean).

 

[quatona]

No we do not assume that if there is evidence that someone is not acting out of free will.

There is plenty of evidence for determining factors in every single case. So the question - even if assuming there to be "free will" - would always be: To which extent was the will free?

That is the reason criminals can defend themselves on mental incompetency. But if we assumed everyone had no free will and no responsibility, then our entire civilization with all its laws would collapse.

That is an argument I have heard often, but I still don´t get it. Please explain.

 

[elman]

quatona;
Even if someone points a gun at my head and says "Do this or I will shoot you." this would not take the option of not doing it away. At best it would be a scale measuring the sum of all social pressures that the person in question is exposed to.

I agree. That option is the free will I am talking about and the sum of all social pressures would not be what decides that option. The person about to be shot makes the decision, which decision will be influenced but not absolutely controled by those social pressures.

 

[elman]

There is plenty of evidence for determining factors in every single case. So the question - even if assuming there to be "free will" - would always be: To which extent was the will free?

That is an argument I have heard often, but I still don´t get it. Please explain.

How do we get traffic fines paid if we assume you had no choice but run the red light and was therefore not responsbile?

 

[quatona]

I don't like the idea it is completely random because that takes the one deciding out of the picture again.

I know that you don´t like it. I do not really like it either. But that does not an argument make.

If I don't have a choice and no one else is making my decisions, who is making them? I assume you would answer No one.

Almost correct guess.
No one, there are no decisions to begin with.

But that does not explain how and why these decisions are occuring.

My point is that there are no decisions. There are occurances. Calling them "decisions" is question-begging in regards to our discussion.

Again, having a reason to do something does not force you to do that. It may influence you to do that, but you still have the ability to say no even in spite of that reason for doing I am not going to do it.--I know we have beat this dead horse to death many times.

You seem to be stuck with the idea of monocausality. Whereas I see billions of determining factors the sum of which necessarily results ina particular action.

 

[quatona]

How do we get traffic fines paid if we assume you had no choice but run the red light and was therefore not responsbile?

In that you send those who has run the red light the bill and threaten them with further punishment in case they don´t pay. Just like you do it when assuming they have "free will" - I don´t see how "free will" would make a difference there.
If an object without "free will" bothers you, you take actions against it.
If a huge stone is on my door way, I remove it although nobody (not even you, I guess ) assumes it to have "free will". Where is the problem?

Edited: Btw. I do not see why assuming something to be existent, just because its absence would run down our society as it is. If those persons were not responsible the statement "... but we have to assume them to be responsible because without it our society would not work the way it works." would be a particularly poor argument.

 

[elman]

You seem to be stuck with the idea of monocausality. Whereas I see billions of determining factors the sum of which necessarily results ina particular action.

I have never argued moncausality. The choice is not no choice or moncausality. The choice is no choice or being one of the causes. I know you see billions of factors but you don't see the one factor I see and experience when I make a decision-me. It appears to be a denial of the reality I observe to say I have no part in the decosopms I make and it is a denial of reality to say I don't have decisions, when I am decideing between different options constantly.

 

[elman]

In that you send those who has run the red light the bill and threaten them with further punishment in case they don´t pay. Just like you do it when assuming they have "free will" - I don´t see how "free will" would make a difference there.
If an object without "free will" bothers you, you take actions against it.
If a huge stone is on my door way, I remove it although nobody (not even you, I guess ) assumes it to have "free will". Where is the problem?

Edited: Btw. I do not see why assuming something to be existent, just because its absence would run down our society as it is. If those persons were not responsible the statement "... but we have to assume them to be responsible because without it our society would not work the way it works." would be a particularly poor argument.

It seems to me to be a poor argument that we ppretend like they were responsible and make them pay a fine even though they are not responsible. And since they are really not responsible and had no choice in the matter, when they have been fined they are unable to chose to not run the red light again and we fine them again. Why would I assume lack of responsibilty and no effect on holding someone responsible when I can observe they can be effected and can change their behavior after being held responsible for their behavour. You want to object to my belief in a Creator because it cannot be observed and then you object to my belief in having and making decisions when it can be observed.

 

[quatona]

I have never argued moncausality. The choice is not no choice or moncausality. The choice is no choice or being one of the causes. I know you see billions of factors but you don't see the one factor I see and experience when I make a decision-me. It appears to be a denial of the reality I observe to say I have no part in the decosopms I make and it is a denial of reality to say I don't have decisions, when I am decideing between different options constantly.

Ok, you are the only one who has choice. No, wait: All who those are determined to think they have a choice have a choice, whilst all those who choose to think their actions are determined have a choice.

 

[quatona]

It seems to me to be a poor argument that we ppretend like they were responsible and make them pay a fine even though they are not responsible. And since they are really not responsible and had no choice in the matter, when they have been fined they are unable to chose to not run the red light again and we fine them again. Why would I assume lack of responsibilty and no effect on holding someone responsible when I can observe they can be effected and can change their behavior after being held responsible for their behavour.

Time and again you try to argue by the assumption that change requires choice. Things that have no choice do change or are changed. Thus, like you take actions against objects with no freewill with the purpose to change things, you could do that in the same way to beings without freewill.
Punishment, btw., is just another factor (and depending on the sort of punishment possibly a pretty strong one) amongst all those that determine the further behaviour of the person.

You want to object to my belief in a Creator because it cannot be observed and then you object to my belief in having and making decisions when it can be observed.

Don´t whine - you are welcome to believe in whatever you believe in.
However I would be intersted how making decisions is observed? What I observe are actions.

 

[elman]

Ok, you are the only one who has choice. No, wait: All who those are determined to think they have a choice have a choice, whilst all those who choose to think their actions are determined have a choice.

Yes we have choices wheather we think we do or not.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
It seems to me to be a poor argument that we ppretend like they were responsible and make them pay a fine even though they are not responsible. And since they are really not responsible and had no choice in the matter, when they have been fined they are unable to chose to not run the red light again and we fine them again. Why would I assume lack of responsibilty and no effect on holding someone responsible when I can observe they can be effected and can change their behavior after being held responsible for their behavour.

Time and again you try to argue by the assumption that change requires choice. Things that have no choice do change or are changed. Thus, like you take actions against objects with no freewill with the purpose to change things, you could do that in the same way to beings without freewill.

I did not argue we had freewill just because of change. I argue we have freewill because we control to some extent the change.

Punishment, btw., is just another factor (and depending on the sort of punishment possibly a pretty strong one) amongst all those that determine the further behaviour of the person.

Sometimes punishment influences a person to change to avoid further punishment and sometimes it does not cause the person to change to avoid futher punishment. It is their choice.

Quote:
You want to object to my belief in a Creator because it cannot be observed and then you object to my belief in having and making decisions when it can be observed.

Don´t whine - you are welcome to believe in whatever you believe in.
However I would be intersted how making decisions is observed? What I observe are actions.

What you chose to call whining was pointing out the inconsistency of your arguments. We observe the actions that are the result of the decisions. Why would you believe the actions were not the result of decisions?

 

[quatona]

I did not argue we had freewill just because of change. I argue we have freewill because we control to some extent the change.

But you argued by pointing to the change. You did, however, not give anything that substantiates your idea it is an indication of control.

Sometimes punishment influences a person to change to avoid further punishment and sometimes it does not cause the person to change to avoid futher punishment. It is their choice.

Sometimes shaking the tree causes an apple to fall off it, and sometimes it doesn´t. It´s their choice.

What you chose to call whining was pointing out the inconsistency of your arguments. We observe the actions that are the result of the decisions. Why would you believe the actions were not the result of decisions?

We both observe an action, you claim there is a decision, you claim to observe that the decision is observable, and I would like to know how you observe the difference between an action from decision and an action without decision. I wouldn´t know how to tell the difference.

 

[quatona]

Yes we have choices wheather we think we do or not.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[elman]

=quatona;28882088]

But you argued by pointing to the change. You did, however, not give anything that substantiates your idea it is an indication of control.

By observing the actions of the people involved.

Sometimes shaking the tree causes an apple to fall off it, and sometimes it doesn´t. It´s their choice.

I know I have a brain and can make decisions. I also know an apple does not. Why would I assume having a brain makes no difference in my actions?

We both observe an action, you claim there is a decision, you claim to observe that the decision is observable, and I would like to know how you observe the difference between an action from decision and an action without decision. I wouldn´t know how to tell the difference.

When I am the one making the decision and observing my actions as a consequence of that decision, I know a decision was involved. When I observe someone with a brain acting as I act after a decision, I assume the same process had occured. When I see an apple fall, knowing it does not have a brain, I assume it was gravity that caused that and not a decision on the part of the apple.

 

[quatona]

=quatona;28882088]
By observing the actions of the people involved.

What about an observed action indicates that it is a decision?

I know I have a brain and can make decisions.

We know we have a brain, agreed. How do you know you can make decisions?

I also know an apple does not. Why would I assume having a brain makes no difference in my actions?

Well, it certainly makes a difference, but what makes you assume that this difference is "decision".

When I am the one making the decision and observing my actions as a consequence of that decision, I know a decision was involved.

Let´s, just hypothetically, assume that you merely think it is a decision (whilst in fact this is merely an illusion) - would that feel different from really having a decision, and how?