Free Will

[Neogaia777]

OK, but I'm thinking about present day practical problems of determining justice.

And by the way, that link you have comes up unavailable.

I forget, you might not be allowed there maybe, sorry...

As for the other, we do have to do that, but not all of us have to, and shouldn't where we don't necessarily have to, etc, way, way too much of that going around nowadays, etc...

But those who we put up there to do it, need to seek to do it slowly and patiently and wisely, and with knowing their judgements will not all of the time be perfect, etc... If they are believers then they should involve God in their own thinking about it and deciding about it privately before administering any of their decisions publicly, etc, and if they are believers, asking for forgiveness when and where they think they should between them and God privately, etc...

I'd say "thank God we're not all judges and lawyers", etc, or policemen or military servicemen and women and whatnot, etc, but way, way too many seem to always want to make themselves such nowadays, the judges and lawyers part anyway, etc, I thank God that I am not, and that I don't have to make very serious judgement calls much of the time, etc... We should always pray (if you are a believer) (and you are not) for those that are, for those kinds of positions are not to be taken up lightly, etc, we need to learn to trust them to do their jobs, and let them do their jobs as well, etc...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Gödel disproved that the truths of mathematics are analytic in Carnap's sense. For example, look at Gödel's Gibb's lecture. Logicism/nominalism and related programs are dead, courtesy of Gödel.

How is that relevant?

 

[SelfSim]

How is that relevant?

Methinks Godel demonstrated that the set of axioms is incomplete at any given iteration of them.
The creative invention of new axioms by mathmematical thinkers, restores logicism and the observation of that then serves as a 'pointer' towards the possibility of conceiving ever 'larger realities' (which then include those other mathematical truths).

The fingerprints of active human minds are all over this process and there's still no evidence of any non-human ones there, at all.

 

[SelfSim]

I think the same Godel-applicable meme applies for @Bradskii's principle of a Free Will inclusive causal chain .. ie: given that one cannot prove any of it ..(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If that is true, and I tend towards that, then how can we hold anyone responsible for the decisions they make? We are obviously bound to a certain degree by genetics and environment, but if there is literally no free will, then whence justice?

From an individual perspective, moral responsibility seems incoherent if your actions are determined, but in a society of broadly shared moral values, moral responsibility could be seen as the expectation that you will act according to those shared values.

If you don't, society may take action to correct any perceived harm and try to prevent such transgressions in future. Justice could be seen as effective action in that respect.

Just speculating... some popular concepts need reinterpreting in a deterministic view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Methinks Godel demonstrated that the set of axioms is incomplete at any given iteration of them.
The creative invention of new axioms by mathmematical thinkers, restores logicism and the observation of that then serves as a 'pointer' towards the possibility of conceiving ever 'larger realities' (which then include those other mathematical truths).

The fingerprints of active human minds are all over this process and there's still no evidence of any non-human ones there, at all.

I still don't see the relevance - if mathematical statements are based on or derived from axioms, ISTM their truths are axiomatic...

 

[SelfSim]

I still don't see the relevance - if mathematical statements are based on or derived from axioms, ISTM their truths are axiomatic...

Sure .. yes .. I wasn't attempting to explain any relevance (I can't see any either).
More like, I was just observing that the argument appeared to be predicted on something other than the accepted outcome of Godel's work .. which was on Incompleteness.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure .. yes .. I wasn't attempting to explain any relevance (I can't see any either).
More like, I was just observing that the argument appeared to be predicted on something other than the accepted outcome of Godel's work .. which was on Incompleteness.

Ah, sorry, I thought that was an explanation, but you're puzzled too...

 

[childeye 2]

If that is true, and I tend towards that, then how can we hold anyone responsible for the decisions they make? We are obviously bound to a certain degree by genetics and environment, but if there is literally no free will, then whence justice?

I am on record stating that the term free will when not qualified properly will morph in meaning. So I pondered this question you ask in a presupposition of what I am guessing you mean by free will in the question you posed. And due to the way positive and negative connotations and denotations of so many terms reverse compared to if we literally do have a free will, I cannot answer the question as posed without forming a long and complex and ultimately futile answer. Now I think from reading your posts, you seem to be a reasonably smart person, so I'm hoping you will understand my response with the fundamental understanding that as a Christian I believe that sin trends towards death and not life:

IF there is no free will according to the term being applied as an equivocation (being equally capable of equally choosing righteousness over sin and equally choosing sin over righteousness), then the question should not be where or when is justice? The question should proceed as: How did/does corruption progress, which includes identifying what it is that is being corrupted, and why, when and where is there mercy and understanding? Because Justice (meaning what is fair and even) would otherwise ultimately amount to splitting hairs about who deserves the greater condemnation for the occurrence of death which is futile to even ponder.

To rephrase: I'm suggesting that scripture is teaching that we are in a circumstance where things are unfair, but it's no one's fault.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok, I'll just come out with it...

I am such a hard line determinist that I believe that when this or these creations end, and new ones begin (again) after them (again), that any and all and everything in it or them, only always proceeds again, just exactly as it always did before again, etc...

And that the people in them, have the same exact kinds of lives all over, or over and over again, etc...

And that these are unable to change or alter any of their courses, because they were just not ever meant to ever change or alter any of their courses, all over again, etc...

And this is what I think "hell" is, etc...

And that it/they (heaven and hell) are both eternal because of this, etc...

But that those that are going to heaven are only the ones who become aware of this, etc...

But that this did not come from them, but only came from God that they became aware of this, etc...

So, some get to go beyond this, and some only ever just get only more of this, and that this stands forever, just as it has been from forever, and none of it is ever of any of our own choosing or deciding ever, because these decisions have already been made for us already from forever, etc...

Not many of you will understand what I just said, because you just were not ever meant to understand what I just said, etc, and even fewer, even if they did understand, will ever come to accept it, even if they did understand, and that is for the very same reasons again, etc, but "it is what it is" and that is something I am having to learn to accept and understand, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok, I'll just come out with it...

I am such a hard line determinist that I believe that when this or these creations end, and new ones begin (again) after them (again), that any and all and everything in it or them, only always proceeds again, just exactly as it always did before again, etc...

And that the people in them, have the same exact kinds of lives all over, or over and over again, etc...

And that these are unable to change or alter any of their courses, because they were just not ever meant to ever change or alter any of their courses, all over again, etc...

And this is what I think "hell" is, etc...

And that it/they (heaven and hell) are both eternal because of this, etc...

But that those that are going to heaven are only the ones who become aware of this, etc...

But that this did not come from them, but only came from God that they became aware of this, etc...

So, some get to go beyond this, and some only ever just get only more of this, and that this stands forever, just as it has been from forever, and none of it is ever of any of our own choosing or deciding ever, because these decisions have already been made for us already from forever, etc...

Not many of you will understand what I just said, because you just were not ever meant to understand what I just said, etc, and even fewer, even if they did understand, will ever come to accept it, even if they did understand, and that is for the very same reasons again, etc, but "it is what it is" and that is something I am having to learn to accept and understand, etc...

God Bless!

Those who are predestined to believe in Jesus Christ have a "chance" at going beyond this whether they believe me, or become aware this, or of anything I just said, or not...

A "chance" anyway... One that is mainly dependent on whether they are truly genuine or true or not, etc...

They will be made aware of the Truth when they arrive, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

An agent arriving at the same choice under identical circumstances rules out free volition? Why couldn't one make a free decision in both cases? Why couldn't the agent freely choose to act the same way? How does "the agent made the same choice under identical circumstances" necessarily imply "there is no free will"?

I have several ideas concerning this issue, but I'd like your response to these questions.

Not arriving at the same choice under the same circumstances, but choosing the exact same choice always under the exact same circumstances, means there is technically no such thing as a truly true free will, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure the argument holds. I'll think about it.

I really do not like at all being the bearer of what others might deem as being bad, or very bad, or extremely challenging, or very discouraging news, so please do just think about it, ok, but also please do also know just how much I hate it also, ok...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

A thought does come to mind. If the choice were optimal, then the argument fails. As Leibniz wrote:

I just love the way some people talk, lol...

You are free to think whatever it is you want to think, ok...

And I really do mean that truly, ok...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Ah, well, it's comforting to know that you find me free to think as I will. Thank you.

Vivat Jesus!

Well, I didn't want to add the word "supposedly" in parenthesis as I thought it might be discouraging to you maybe...

But and/or anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@Catholic Philosophy

I'm not one to (endlessly) argue with people who insist something must be true just because they want it to be true, as I don't think I'll ever be able to change their mind, so I've just learned to try to give them a few words that might maybe put their mind at ease, and just leave it/them, and let them be, etc...

Maybe they don't have the ability to be 100% objective after all, because maybe they were never meant to, and I'm not going to fight or argue against that, because that would be pointless, so I just let them be, etc...

Be Blessed.

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

The question should proceed as: How did/does corruption progress, which includes identifying what it is that is being corrupted, and why, when and where is there mercy and understanding?

This may get a little wooly as I don't accept the term sin to mean anything other than doing something that has negative consequences (and that determination will depend on your relative position when the act is commited).

Generally, someone will do something that we'd consider wrong - stealing for example, for selfish reasons. I could work harder to earn more money to buy what I want, but stealing it means I personally don't have to put in the effort.

Now if I had been brought up in a loving family, taught how to behave in life (to act 'like a good Christian' as my mother used to say) and I'd hung around with peers that also had been brought up that way then stealing would generally be something I wouldn't do. But if I had been the son of an abusive father, raised by a drug addled single mother in a slum somewhere, then that combo of genes and environment would have me turnout quite differently.

The question is, how much blame or praise can we apportion to the genetic inheritance and environmental conditions of each of those versions of me?

 

[Bradskii]

From an individual perspective, moral responsibility seems incoherent if your actions are determined, but in a society of broadly shared moral values, moral responsibility could be seen as the expectation that you will act according to those shared values.

If you don't, society may take action to correct any perceived harm and try to prevent such transgressions in future. Justice could be seen as effective action in that respect.

Just speculating... some popular concepts need reinterpreting in a deterministic view.

I don't disagree with any of that. But how do we apportion blame when the circumstances often dictate our actions? See my post above for example.

 

[Bradskii]

An agent arriving at the same choice under identical circumstances rules out free volition? Why couldn't one make a free decision in both cases? Why couldn't the agent freely choose to act the same way? How does "the agent made the same choice under identical circumstances" necessarily imply "there is no free will"?

I have several ideas concerning this issue, but I'd like your response to these questions.

There is either a reason for making a decision or it's abitrary. The latter is obviously not related to the question of free will. So each so-called free will decision has a reason.

Certain conditions prevail and, based on those conditions, which will be the reason why we chose (and they will include our thought processes, because they wont be arbitrary, else again we are not discussing free will) we'll make a specific choice. Let's say you have salad instead of steak.

Repeat the exact same conditions (imagine re-running a film) and the choice will either be exactly the same every time, in which case your decisions are determined and free will, in the sense that I accept it, does not exist OR you change you mind and exhibit free will. But in that case, what changed that prompted you to make a different choice?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't disagree with any of that. But how do we apportion blame when the circumstances often dictate our actions? See my post above for example.

Perhaps we don't have the free will to other than to punish members of our society as if they had free will.

It seems, perhaps, a bit glib. But two posts (#559) above you imply environment can affect one's actions. Well, if we blame and punish, aren't we creating/changing an environment that might change one's behavior? If we do it right, might that one's new behavior patterns positively affect the survival of the society?

As determined beings, one could say we don't have a choice but to blame/punish.