Free Will

[quote name='Koggit']
you realize chemicals (molecules, atoms, quarks, whatever) are nothing but parts of a man-made model we've created to formally express our observations (which are inherently limited by human perception), right?

it's a legit stance, i wouldn't argue against it or try to change your mind, it's a valid belief to hold, but personally i find it to be too cyclical to put much stock in. it seems like its using a product of our consciousness (observation) to explain our consciousness, when we nothing about how absolute our observation is.[/QUOTE]


They are a man-made model for something that is occurring whether or not we we name and identify them. The same can be said about viruses but before we knew what they were or labeled them they still affected people.
 
[quote name='SpazX']You don't have free will in the sense that, given the same information and the same situation, you could ever make a different decision.[/QUOTE]

Prove it. All you need is a time machine, a wiped memory and a notebook for recording results.
 
[quote name='antlp89']Who is Will and when was he captured?[/QUOTE]

Screw Will, free my ass from this crap-tacular job.

On that note, my body compels me to stay in bed in the morning. It tells me I'd rather sleep in. That I could just call into work. And unless I can give myself a good reason (i.e. being sick, mentally or physically) then I gather up all of my willpower and force myself out of bed and into the shower.

And now here I am, browsing CAG at work. Now I'm going to question myself about when I want to get lunch. Just because I'm hungry (as a basic necessity of living, not because I choose to be) doesn't mean I choose to eat right now. Sometimes I go right away, sometimes I wait.

I like to flip the universe the bird any opportunity I get.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Sounds like Spaz is talking about fate. As if you were fated to do something and that can't be changed.[/QUOTE]

Fate has some supernatural connotations, but pretty much, it is deterministic. One thing causes another and there are no uncaused events, so if you had the capacity to know everything then you could 100% accurately predict what was going to happen next.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Sounds like Spaz is talking about fate. As if you were fated to do something and that can't be changed.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='koggit']I'm not talking about fate or anything like that...[/quote]

Perhaps we should talk about donuts. At least the universe is shaped like a donut...
 
This is my position:

People have free will.

People may not have the freedom to DO as they will.

Why? Because I'm sick of people arguing why they shouldn't be blamed when they mess up. "Videogames made me violent." "I'm a sex addict." Suck it up and learn to take responsibility.
 
[quote name='"Rush"']You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.[/quote]

I voted in favor of Free Will. I am in class right now, but I might chime in further when I get home.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're making the grand assumption that I can't change my situation.
[/QUOTE]

You can, but you have less freedom to do so than you would if there weren't kids involved, you weren't married etc. as the consequences are much greater.

No one is saying humans lack the ability to make decisions--we of course make decisions today.

But what we decide in these situations is largely influenced by everything that has happened in our lives to that point, the morals/values we hold from our socialization, and the specifics/context of the situtation.

Some people can just say "I hate this job, I'm quitting" as they have no dependents etc., other's really want to quit but can't just walk away. They have to do what your doing and find ways to get themselves a better job as they can't give up the paycheck.

Point being, some people choices have more restraints than others.
 
It's that dmaul, but taken further. Taking into consideration all causes and motivations, in the end the only choice he could possibly have made is the one he made. If it were repeated a million times the result would be the same. Only adding in other motivations would change it.

This is a good short read about it - http://www.naturalism.org/determinism.htm

There are other writings about free will at that website too.
 
[quote name='SpazX']It's that dmaul, but taken further. Taking into consideration all causes and motivations, in the end the only choice he could possibly have made is the one he made. If it were repeated a million times the result would be the same. Only adding in other motivations would change it.

This is a good short read about it - http://www.naturalism.org/determinism.htm

There are other writings about free will at that website too.[/QUOTE]

The article requires there be only one universe. If there is a multitude of universes and one slips into a different one, determinism falls apart.
 
Well, if there is a multitude of universes and you can slip into another one. But even then, if there were multiple universes, but they were all deterministic, then it wouldn't really make a difference, would it? And if it killed determinism then you're saying it kills cause and effect as well, meaning maybe the next time you roll that ball down the hill it might just up and fly away, then turn into jesus riding a raptor.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well, if there is a multitude of universes and you can slip into another one. But even then, if there were multiple universes, but they were all deterministic, then it wouldn't really make a difference, would it? And if it killed determinism then you're saying it kills cause and effect as well, meaning maybe the next time you roll that ball down the hill it might just up and fly away, then turn into jesus riding a raptor.[/QUOTE]

I am saying that. Just keep trying out different hills at different times of day.
 
[quote name='SpazX']It's that dmaul, but taken further. Taking into consideration all causes and motivations, in the end the only choice he could possibly have made is the one he made. If it were repeated a million times the result would be the same. Only adding in other motivations would change it.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed, that was just a more philosophical take on it. But yeah, he would make that decision unless some motivating factor forced a chance by changning the situation.

The job got much worse and he just couldn't take it any more etc. Something that alters the context of the situation is required to make a different decision than the one he's basically forced to make since he can't quit the job without dire consequences.
 
[quote name='gareman']They are a man-made model for something that is occurring whether or not we we name and identify them.[/QUOTE]

You can't state " is occurring" as a truth. Even something as fundamental as "mass attracts mass" is not an absolute truth, it's only a truth within the context of our (human) perception.

Again I'd like to be clear: I'm not dismissing your opinion, I think trusting our perception is a very valid stance, we really have no other option, I only wanted to clarify because your post seemed to indicate the existence of perceived chemical actions/reactions is an absolute truth, when in fact those actions/reactions' existence is an assumption, an assumption that can quickly muddle discussions about perception.
 
Tautology is using a behavior to predict itself. For instance predicting crime by a person's past involvement in crime. Of course criminal behavior predicts criminal behavior.

A deterministic theory would be something like a biological work showing people with certain hormonal imbalances are more likely to be violent, aggressive and be involved in antisocial and criminal behavior. Or people who face strain in their lives are more likely to be involved in crime.

A free will/classic/rational choice theory would say people aren't pushed into actions by factors like that but choose to commit crimes because people are hedonistic and they decided committing the crime was the easiest way to resolve the situation. T
 
Determinism can--and is wrong IMO.

As is 100% free will.

People's behavior is shaped by biological factors, social factors over their life, social factors in the current moment, emotions etc. etc. But people still have agency and make decisions--their decisions are just influenced by all that other stuff so it's not simple free will where they are objectively weighing costs and benefits and making decisions accordingly.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Determinism can--and is wrong IMO.

As is 100% free will.

People's behavior is shaped by biological factors, social factors over their life, social factors in the current moment, emotions etc. etc. But people still have agency and make decisions--their decisions are just influenced by all that other stuff so it's not simple free will where they are objectively weighing costs and benefits and making decisions accordingly.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly what I'm asking.

On its own merits, can determinism be wrong?

Determinism strikes me as accurately predicting the past.

Free will is attempting to predict the future.
 
No, both are trying to predict the future--at least in my view being a social scientist as that's how our deterministic/positivism theories work.

No one cares about predicting the past, theories are trying to predict future behavior--based off past behavior, personal traits, social factors (societal and things immediate to the person etc.).

Free Will (classical theories) assume people are hedonistic (naturally bad) and will always make decisions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Deterministic theories (positivist theories) more assume humans are blank slates (neutral or are inherently "good" rather than hedonistic) and antisocial behavior comes from "pushes" from factors such as biological flaws, psychological flaws, social events in the past (that affect strain, levels of self control etc.), current settings (peer pressure etc.) that turn people bad and push them to make bad/antisocial decisions etc.

Again, maybe some branches of philosophy look at the two concepts differently. But that's how they work (in a rough nutshell) in criminology anyway.
 
What dmaul said as far as predicting the future. Examples use the past because only the past has happened so far. Like I said before, determinism means if you knew all current causes you would know what would happen in the future - so that there is no room for free will. Free will presupposes that you can make a choice independent from prior causes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Free Will (classical theories) assume people are hedonistic (naturally bad) and will always make decisions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain.[/QUOTE]

There is the flaw.

Some people require an extreme negative (positive) to do good (bad) things.

A very few people perform an extreme negative (positive) because it is the bad (good) thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top