Belief in free will is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I think you're right.

But the problem is that free will is so closely tied with morality that when you take it away... it takes away personal accountability and responsibility, and people don't like that. They want to hold each other accountable, mainly other people that they point the finger at... and never themselves, actually, which is a problem.

I think everyone is wrong and I think we're all responsible for everything, not just one person. And not just people, either. The earth and everything in the universe too, is also responsible for everything. At the same exact time I think that we can never hold ourselves entirely responsible for anybody else's actions. What other people do is not our fault.

Lol.

But idk, maybe I'm wrong too and maybe there's a chance that if we begin to become aware of how we are all set up, programmed and conditioned, then maybe we can choose to break out of our own prison like paradigms... but I think that's truly rare. Most people never break out.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I guess a concise point that I'm trying to make is, it depends on what your definition of "free will" is, and you did not give us a good basis of your definition of the concept.

Yeah, it depends what you mean by free will. You are completely correct about explaining the type of free will you represented and I agree. But I am talking about free will on another level if that makes sense. That even though you can choose between different courses of action, you still choose what your unconscious processes choose for you. So in that sense there is no free will. In your sense there is and I obviously agree.

Do you believe that mentally handicapped people are the exception to the rule, or are they the basis for your hypothesis? There are obvious instinctual feelings that influence our decisions, but I doubt they play as big a part as montra or credo. You can say that character is influenced by environment, but many people share similar values, while some share opposing values. Are you of the opinion that character is predetermined? It seems like many people here believe that it is subconsciously implanted by government or the dreaded illuminati or religion

a reply to: geezlouise

I do agree that we are, in some cases, responsible for other people's actions. It could just be a butterfly effect type situation, or it could be much more profound d in some instances. In kindergarten there was a boy named Ben. He used to chase all the girls and try to kiss them. Somebody called him 'Ben gay' and the nickname stuck. At some point during adolescents, he decided he was gay. I have always felt bad for this, but if the OP is correct in his statement, I am absolved of any guilt I might have (unfortunately, I think the OP is misguided).

a reply to: onthedownlow

I also agree that we are in some ways responsible for one another's behavior. We as in, everyone and everything making up the environment. Not just one person. But, that kind of reinforces the idea that we don't have free will... not really. If people are influencing one another (and they are, just like in your story), it takes away free will from the individual. It's like that little boy in your story never had a chance, he got stuck in a weird paradigm (the ben gay one) and couldn't detach/break free.

I agree with the OP basically. Our biology and our immediate environment are the driving forces in our lives.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, that's as sound a growing limbs back using free will.

Now you are beginning to understand. You illustrate my point nicely.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: Andy1144

Every decision we make is being made by a very complex process of synapses, electrical signals ect, over which we obviously have no control of.

Thinking that's not free will is a fallacy.

Why?

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I think you're right.

But the problem is that free will is so closely tied with morality that when you take it away... it takes away personal accountability and responsibility, and people don't like that. They want to hold each other accountable, mainly other people that they point the finger at... and never themselves, actually, which is a problem.

I understand what you are saying, but not sure I entirely agree. People are, and should be responsible for their decisions, because they are the immediate cause of the result of such things. Though in the end, they are not the "ultimate cause".


To use a poor analogy. If your'e strolling along a mountain trail and a branch falls off a tree, just missing you. The tree with its rotten branch would obviously be responsible for your near miss, though you could follow a chain of causation back a very long way if you like, but the particular tree with a rotten branch would amount to what would be called the "proximate cause" of your near miss. So it might be necessary to trim or perhaps chop the tree down, possibly take a survey of all of the other trees to remove the threat of injury. Though you wouldn't assign ultimate or moral responsibility to the tree. You certainly wouldn't chop it down because your hatred made you feel a need for retribution, because that would be irrational.


The only way society would change with the realisation that ultimately people have no free will either, is that there would be less hatred and possibly more compassion. The problem we struggle with (not only in this area) is that by default, we are generally very irrational creatures. It's easy to confuse what the "non free will" people are saying with fatalism where we might as well give up because everything is already feted. This is unlikely to be really so (IMO) and we all have the opportunity to learn and effect change (free will or not).


Though as attitudes around consciousness in general begin to change to reflect what experiments seem to indicate, and consistent with what we understand of our universe, the chance for genuinely understanding the human psyche is also greater. With it the opportunity to understand and help those with various mental afflictions could arise out of such understanding, which would have the possibility of relieving an immense amount of suffering.


Perhaps one day psychology could be a practical scientific discipline, rather than a statistical/philosophical one. At least it might help us move in the right direction, some very antiquated notions are still holding academia back in this area (though it's gradually changing, particularly in neuroscience).

a reply to: geezlouise

The problem is, unless he was going to be gay all along, his own choices made him that way regardless of outside influences. I don't think a young boy that was over curious with young girls was predisposed to be gay.

My problem with the supposition there's no free will is it makes one vulnerable to believing they shouldn't be blamed or held accountable for their actions. It's too easy to fall into victim-status, believing either your own nature or the condition of your environment is the key to happiness. I think this inevitably should--in its purest form--lead to reliance on government for happiness, exactly because the self is so unaccountable and neglected.

Looking at the US government budget--as percentage of its economic output--shows a persistent growth. I believe this underlies also a decline in reverence for free will.

I'm articulating we're on a slow and steady advance to collectivism. I don't think we'll ever reach its peak. In fact, I believe this is the natural consequence of civilization. Individuals will exist into the indefinite future unless and until time/space constraints are lifted. By this I mean any and all inertia or delay is removed. Otherwise some independent decision-making is demanded.

But here I betray a truth: Some free will--or reverence thereof--must persist, even in the extremes of collectivism.

What's the opposite of free will, which would be the logical result if free will didn't exist?

originally posted by: jonnywhite
My problem with the supposition there's no free will is it makes one vulnerable to believing they shouldn't be blamed or held accountable for their actions.

Believe me, "out there", which means everywhere but there, there's no free will.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
What's the opposite of free will, which would be the logical result if free will didn't exist?

Less anger, less frustration and more laughter.

A man was in a boat and it was very foggy - suddenly the boat was hit by another boat jarring the man. Anger arose and he was about to shout at the other boatman - he looked and saw there was no one in the other boat, anger disappeared as laughter appeared.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I see

originally posted by: geezlouise
I think everyone is wrong and I think we're all responsible for everything, not just one person. And not just people, either. The earth and everything in the universe too, is also responsible for everything.

I think you are saying that the universe is self organising - but there isn't any separate thing (a person) doing or choosing anything.

But idk, maybe I'm wrong too and maybe there's a chance that if we begin to become aware of how we are all set up, programmed and conditioned, then maybe we can choose to break out of our own prison like paradigms... but I think that's truly rare. Most people never break out.

There is no separate 'you' that can choose to break out. However, it can be seen that now is happening and it is too late for something separate to change it.

Notice that when thought arises there wasn't a separate someone choosing the thought. The assumption is that there is a 'thinker' of thought - that separate 'thinker' does not exist.

The thinker is thought.
Now, if we see the truth of that - that the thinker is thought, that there is no thinker separate from thought, but only the process of thinking - , then what happens? If we see that there is only thinking and not a thinker trying to modify thought, what is the result? I hope I am making myself clear. So far, we know that the thinker is operating upon thought, and this creates conflict between the thinker and the thought; but if we see the truth that there is only thought and not a thinker, that the thinker is arbitrary, artificial and entirely fictitious - then what happens? Is not the process of conflict removed? At present our life is a conflict, a series of battles between the thinker and the thought - what to do and what not to do, what should be and what should not be. The thinker is always separating himself as the `me' remaining outside of action. But when we see that there is only thought, have we not then removed the cause of conflict? Then we are able to be choicelessly aware of thought and not as the thinker observing thought from outside. When we remove the entity that creates conflict, surely then there is a possibility of understanding thought. When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end.jkrishnamurti.org...

a reply to: Andy1144

The term "Free Will" is usually not defined properly in these sorts of discussions, which leads to all sorts of problems when debating the subject.

I do not have absolute Free Will. I cannot will to instantaneously grow wings and fly into the sky and into space where I can travel at 10 times the speed of light.

I might have relative Free Will. I can make decisions based on the laws of the universe and act on the accordingly to a certain extent. I can choose to send you a paper invitation in the mail or a digital one by email.

I might have no Free Will. ANY decision I make or action I take is governed by some type of conditioning. I brush my teeth every night because my parents told me to.

a reply to: Incandescent

You cannot even know what thought will arise next.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Arthur Schopenhauer.

Is the OP talking about thoughts themselves, actions themselves or thoughts that lead to actions? (My guess is the last one).

originally posted by: Incandescent
a reply to: Itisnowagain

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Arthur Schopenhauer.

Is the OP talking about thoughts themselves, actions themselves or thoughts that lead to actions? (My guess is the last one).

All of it.
It is assumed that there is 'someone in there (standing apart from the happening)' controlling - and doing thoughts and actions - but everything is simply just happening.

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” “
— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York, 2010, p. 32.
amiquote.tumblr.com...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I agree.

I was only pointing out why people have such an aversion to the idea of a lack of free will in their lives.

Usually the aversion is based on a focus of what others are doing.

It's when other people aren't making the "right" choices that they can be held accountable. Because people believe that there's a right and wrong choice to be made and because people believe we have the free will to decide. And so, in line with these beliefs... if we DON'T have free will then there's no right choice or wrong choice to be made... it's like that other person had no choice but to choose what they did. And that takes away accountability. And people want to continue punishing one another(but not themselves) so they love the idea of free will and holding others accountable (and never themselves).

I agree that a lack of free will could open up more compassion and forgiveness, and lead to a better understanding of how things operate. I think holding people accountable the way that most people do it, is just an elementary excuse for people to recycle the abuse.

I think when other people do bad sh-t, we will be prompted to change things in order to prevent the people doing bad sh-t. Our prompt to change things wouldn't be our own will, we would've been lead into it and programmed and conditioned for it by the exposure of bad sh-t.

Just like your story about the rotted tree branch...

When the rotted branch fell, it prompted a whole system of safety regulation so that other people wouldn't get hurt.

The tree didn't "decide" to die and rot, and then let it's branch go and almost hurt someone.

In the same way, when someone hurts another(rape, murder, theft)- just because I believe none of us really have any free will, it doesn't mean I think those things are ok or safe now. Just like the instance with the rotting tree, I would be prompted/triggered to respond to that situation and make changes so that person doesn't hurt anybody else. Which explains the government, justice system and lawmakers.

I think the truth is more important than holding one another accountable and if we can accept that people are robots/programmed/conditioned and basically have no choice, it will never mean that some peoples behaviors are ok. The belief that we have no real choice might inspire more forgiveness and compassion, and help us release the pain and anger that comes with pointing the finger at another and damning them for making the "wrong" choices and believing that they were ever capable of making any other choice. They weren't. (just because you can fly, it doesn't mean everyone else can)

Even if we don't have free will, we'd all still be prompted to avoid the dangers of unsafe behaviors. There would still be a justice system, even without free will. Because I think it is part of the human condition and program to live, to survive. So we naturally avoid dangers and set up prevention systems to protect us.

The lack of free will does not make everything automatically ok. But it can help free us from anger and get to work changing our environment... so that things can be more ok than it is.

I sort of went on a crazy rant there. And I'm not sorry if I'm repeating or regurgitating what others are saying here, lol.