5 ms·

ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need som

by narag 11y ago

ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. The opposite to freedom is slavery, either from external circumstances or from own instincts that, in turn, is caused by external circumstances: arrested development, physiological defects or the mental illness. So lack of freedom has causes and freedom has causes too (configuration of our brain and a favorable environment). The opposite of freedom is not "uncaused". Requiring no determinism is one more example of the not true scottman fallacy. Or moving goal posts.

onion2k 11y ago
that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would make the exact same decisions as that person. In other words, we don't actually make any decisions for ourselves. It's all determined by chemistry. If that's true then someone could argue that the path of their life was predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time, so the fact they shot their wife was actually nothing they could have had any control over, and it's very unfair to lock them away for 30 years if they couldn't have changed anything. It's just the latest outcome of a chemical reaction that started at the Big Bang. It's actually a very compelling argument. The counter argument requires 'magic' in the form of something that we can control that can't be measured. That's a big ask for any rational scientist. [1] Pretty huge 'just' there because it discounts God, souls, etc. Many people think that the brain isn't just atomic particles. But there's no evidence that they're right. We've cut brains up and looked.
- domas 11y ago
  Then by this logic one could argue, that locking them away for 30 years is not unfair because it is also predetermined by the state of the universe at this given time and there is nothing other people could do but to sentence the killer. Free will or no free will the argument goes both ways.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Exactly. I have never understood why people use determinism to excuse bad behaviour, but fail to see the resulting punishment is just as determined.
    - marklgr 11y ago
      They don't fail to see it, they just object to calling it "fair".
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        If determinism is true then nothing (or everything) is “fair”.
- pjc50 11y ago
  interactions between particles is a deterministic process But this isn't even deterministic on its own terms. Particle decay is stochastic. Quantum tunneling is stochastic. There's a constant, silent rain of neutrinos that don't interact nearly all the time. Fully deterministic analog electronic computing is impossible because we cannot eliminate Johnson noise and shot noise. Why do people then think that neural computing would be noise-free?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Unpredictability != dualistic free will.
- cLeEOGPw 11y ago
yk 11y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted, for presenting what amounts to the leading theory of free will. ( Compatibilism, the view that free will is compatible with determinism is the most popular theory of free will among philosophers.[1]) [1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
- cLeEOGPw 11y ago
  Free will is flat earth of philosophy.
- marklgr 11y ago
  Even though the view is mainstream, compatibilists have a lot of serious objections to deal with, so the point is far from "obvious".
  - yk 11y ago
    Yes, and actually I am a libertarian in that debate, but I think one can successfully defend a compatibilist view.
- narag 11y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted Politics. Any question that has remotely been associated with different ideologies, religions or any other polarizing groups division is bound to provoke this kind of reaction. Free will is associated with religion, so non-religious people tend to oppose to the idea. Actually I believe that religion is in the origin of the no free will conception. Nature vs nurture is another of such debates. I'd add a few more, but enough of making friends for today :-)
Amezarak 11y ago
> Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains and describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will". I prefer to say that the thing we call "free will" is simply a confusion of ideas and it doesn't really make sense to talk about free wills or unfree wills. That's often the case with longstanding philosophical problems, which often began with superstition and then had centuries of extremely intelligent people devising concepts and arguments to justify and validate them. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ See in particular, 3.3.
- narag 11y ago
  Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!! describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will" That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric concept at all, but the absence of obstacles. You just ignored it, invoking exactly the falacy I mentioned: "except in a very limited sense". Why is it "very limited"? You don't even try to justify that qualification. And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. No, that's the most simple and truthful intuition. The complication comes from people trying to apply abstractions out of place and concluding that nothing heavier than air can fly.
  - Amezarak 11y ago

by narag 11y ago

onion2k 11y ago

that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would make the exact same decisions as that person. In other words, we don't actually make any decisions for ourselves. It's all determined by chemistry. If that's true then someone could argue that the path of their life was predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time, so the fact they shot their wife was actually nothing they could have had any control over, and it's very unfair to lock them away for 30 years if they couldn't have changed anything. It's just the latest outcome of a chemical reaction that started at the Big Bang. It's actually a very compelling argument. The counter argument requires 'magic' in the form of something that we can control that can't be measured. That's a big ask for any rational scientist. [1] Pretty huge 'just' there because it discounts God, souls, etc. Many people think that the brain isn't just atomic particles. But there's no evidence that they're right. We've cut brains up and looked.

domas 11y ago
Then by this logic one could argue, that locking them away for 30 years is not unfair because it is also predetermined by the state of the universe at this given time and there is nothing other people could do but to sentence the killer. Free will or no free will the argument goes both ways.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Exactly. I have never understood why people use determinism to excuse bad behaviour, but fail to see the resulting punishment is just as determined.
  - marklgr 11y ago
    They don't fail to see it, they just object to calling it "fair".
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      If determinism is true then nothing (or everything) is “fair”.
pjc50 11y ago
interactions between particles is a deterministic process But this isn't even deterministic on its own terms. Particle decay is stochastic. Quantum tunneling is stochastic. There's a constant, silent rain of neutrinos that don't interact nearly all the time. Fully deterministic analog electronic computing is impossible because we cannot eliminate Johnson noise and shot noise. Why do people then think that neural computing would be noise-free?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Unpredictability != dualistic free will.
cLeEOGPw 11y ago

yk 11y ago

Not sure why you are downvoted, for presenting what amounts to the leading theory of free will. ( Compatibilism, the view that free will is compatible with determinism is the most popular theory of free will among philosophers.[1]) [1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

cLeEOGPw 11y ago
Free will is flat earth of philosophy.
marklgr 11y ago
Even though the view is mainstream, compatibilists have a lot of serious objections to deal with, so the point is far from "obvious".
- yk 11y ago
  Yes, and actually I am a libertarian in that debate, but I think one can successfully defend a compatibilist view.
narag 11y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted Politics. Any question that has remotely been associated with different ideologies, religions or any other polarizing groups division is bound to provoke this kind of reaction. Free will is associated with religion, so non-religious people tend to oppose to the idea. Actually I believe that religion is in the origin of the no free will conception. Nature vs nurture is another of such debates. I'd add a few more, but enough of making friends for today :-)

Amezarak 11y ago

> Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains and describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will". I prefer to say that the thing we call "free will" is simply a confusion of ideas and it doesn't really make sense to talk about free wills or unfree wills. That's often the case with longstanding philosophical problems, which often began with superstition and then had centuries of extremely intelligent people devising concepts and arguments to justify and validate them. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ See in particular, 3.3.

narag 11y ago
Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!! describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will" That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric concept at all, but the absence of obstacles. You just ignored it, invoking exactly the falacy I mentioned: "except in a very limited sense". Why is it "very limited"? You don't even try to justify that qualification. And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will. No, that's the most simple and truthful intuition. The complication comes from people trying to apply abstractions out of place and concluding that nothing heavier than air can fly.
- Amezarak 11y ago