The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Imagination, dreams, illusions, delusions, cognitive-dissonance - are all causes and effects - so free will - even if it is an illusion, delusion, and/or etc. - has a cause and is effective.

Even in a deterministic view - calling free will an illusion does not negate it as a causal force. Therefore, it exists and interacts with reality. It has as much substance as any other component of reality, as long as it exists.

Before you start screaming 'woo woo' keep in mind that Einstein's ideas on gravity would never have come to light if he actually jumped off a building and discovered he felt weightless rather than imagined he jumped off a building and how it would feel to him from his point of view.

And, if a suicide bomber blows himself up because of a 'god delusion' - people still die.

Arguing that 'free will' does not exist is navel gazing. If it doesn't - your success or failure at eradicating it as a tenacious effect is predestined. If it doesn't and people continue to believe it exists - it remains 'in effect'. If it does - it does and you are wrong.

In any case, the 'system of causation' is so hyper complex that arguing that 'free will' does not exist is like arguing that 10^-1000 > 0. I repeat - so what?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on January 19, 2010 at 10:40pm

One of the oldest philosophical debates still occurring. Some people like to debate.

Although there appears to be little evidence for free will, it is agreed that its perception has been advantageous.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on January 20, 2010 at 12:46am

Look up 'compatibilism', especially Daniel Dennett's view.

Personally, I've learned it works best to completely pull the rug out from under the endless back-and-forth by simply renaming what I'm talking about. Instead of calling it 'free will', I call it 'conscious choice'. Even in a deterministic universe, I make choices, and I'm conscious of those choices and can 'assent' to them, or keep searching for new choices. If I see an apple on the table, I can pick up the apple if I want it, or I can leave it there if I don't want it. I'm aware that I can make this choice, and I can assent to whatever choice I make. For example, if I have an impulse to pick up the apple, I am aware (conscious) of that impulse, and I can intervene (choice) with my other desires to override that impulse. "Yes, I want the apple, but I really want to leave it for my friend, so I'm going to leave it. I assent to this choice." If I don't assent to a choice, I can refrain from acting at all until I find a choice that I can assent to. E.g. "Yes, I want the apple, but I want to leave it for my friend. Hmm, I'm not really happy with that. Maybe I'll split the apple in two and leave him half. Yes, I assent to that choice."

That's it. We make choices and are conscious of making them. Conscious choice. Whether my choices are determined by my underlying brain psychology is irrelevant to the fact that I *can* either assent or not assent to them until I'm satisfied that, "Yes, indeed, that is 'my' choice. Is that my final answer? Yes, that's my final answer." By taking ownership of my choices like this, all of the important aspects of 'free will' are encompassed by 'conscious choice', without all the irrelevant baggage about whether 'will' is really 'free'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on January 20, 2010 at 1:44am

You're espousing intellectual dishonesty?

To each their own, I guess ....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on January 20, 2010 at 10:48am

Personally, I've learned it works best to completely pull the rug out from under the endless back-and-forth by simply renaming what I'm talking about.

That to mean says "intellectual dishonesty". It is, notably, a personal perspective.

Dennett gets zero respect from me; not a fan of zealotry in most of its myriad forms.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on January 20, 2010 at 4:56pm

LOL, not particularly familiar with him. I'll have to check him out.

I believe I already answered the question on Dennett; zealotry, just not particularly a fan.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on January 20, 2010 at 5:41pm

"That to mean says "intellectual dishonesty". It is, notably, a personal perspective."

How, exactly, is it dishonest? Are you assuming something that I'm not actually saying?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on January 20, 2010 at 6:11pm

Wonderist - this exercise has spawned a new line of questioning for me - and, in that way alone, you have been instrumental. That is to say - if there is a difference between free will and the ability to make a choice - indeed, you have made a point that goes beyond a legitimate approach to understanding - which is to state something in different terms for the purposes of clarification.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Freedom of Anonymity on January 21, 2010 at 12:07am

Anything of the compatibilist variety is intellectually dishonest. It is the lowest form of equivocation.

Not withstanding, redefining terminology in a debate that has been ongoing, at least academically, since the Roman Empire, is just misdirection and obfuscation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on January 21, 2010 at 9:34am

"equivocation"

Where have I equivocated? I specifically use 'conscious choice' to avoid equivocations caused by the ambiguous 'free will'.

"Anything of the compatibilist variety is intellectually dishonest."

Making broad dismissals of a specific argument based on personal opinion about a general category of argument, without addressing the specific argument at hand, is intellectually dishonest. To then label that argument as 'intellectually dishonest' without showing how or why, is furthermore hypocritical, thus doubly dishonest.

"Not withstanding, redefining terminology in a debate that has been ongoing, at least academically, since the Roman Empire, is just misdirection and obfuscation."

Sorry, that's utter bullshit. Almost all advances in science and philosophy require redefining terminology. Darwin did it (natural selection is without intention), Einstein did it (time is a dimension), Plato did it, etc. etc. etc. It is done all the time, at all levels of science and philosophy even today. You don't like it, but that's your problem. Deal with it.

I'm a pragmatist. I go by what works. Renaming the important parts of 'free will' as 'conscious choice' *works* to put the brakes on the endless back-and-forth equivocations of the debate. Show me that you have a better solution, and I'll go with that. Until then, your distaste for compatibilism and my clarification of it are irrelevant to me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on January 21, 2010 at 9:48am

redefining terminology in a debate that has been ongoing, at least academically, since the Roman Empire, is just misdirection and obfuscation.

So we should discuss this in latin? Isn't refining language as our understanding changes part of what a living language is about?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wonderist on January 20, 2010 at 11:59am

No, I'm very honest about my renaming. When people speak of the practical use of 'free will' in everyday situations, they almost invariably mean 'conscious choice'. The other aspects of 'free will' are esoteric distractions from the main concern of whether or not we can make 'our own' choices. By talking about 'conscious choice' rather than 'free will', I'm actually encouraging intellectual honesty by removing several equivocations of 'free' and 'will' from the discussion, which reduces confusion and hence improves communication and conceptualization. For example, one complaint about determinism is that it eliminates contra-causal free will. Naive critics will then say things to the effect of, "Well, that belief would mean you can't punish criminals because their actions were determined, and not of free will." This is an equivocation on 'free', because the kind of 'free' necessary to punish criminals is not contra-causal freedom, but freedom of conscious assent. Determinism (most interpretations) eliminates contra-causality, but not conscious choice. Pointing this out in a conversation is a good way to move the discussion forward, instead of getting stuck on an endless argument over an equivocation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on January 20, 2010 at 12:22pm

Wonderist - your definition of conscious choice is not different from Free Will. Your definition of conscious choice implies that we have some kind of power to affect our choice by evoking our "consciousness". This give our consciousness some kind of power that it doe not posses. To me, it sounds like it falls into the trap of psychological dualism. I guess it just doesn't work for me.

My point of difference is that I believe choice is a sub-conscious function which feeds into our conscious awareness. We only perceive we have made a choice because of how our subconscious choices make us feel.

It is hard to wrestle with the idea that the complexity of survival must be the cause for our perception of choice... but this is the only logical conclusion IMHO.

On the subject of criminal punishment. We should only punish a criminal if it will have an effect in preventing crime. I am sure punishment works, but study is required to determine how to get an optimum outcome from any given punishment. Prison is a form of punishment that also serves a second function; to remove a threat from the rest of the group. Prison for criminals should not only be considered a punishment, but should also be understood as a way to remove a proven threat. The idea of "justice" is really beside the point. Justice is part of the Free Will model... which, as I stated earlier, is a broken model that should be abandoned.