Free will vs determinism

[Drummer Guy]

I've never spent any time worrying about whether we have free will or not, because it doesn't seem to matter.  The things that happened happened.  Tomorrow will unfold however it does, regardless of my personal stance on the issue.

I'm wondering, does it actually matter?  I probably have a lot to learn on this subject so if you simply want to link me to an article that would be great.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I've never spent any time worrying about whether we have free will or not, because it doesn't seem to matter.  The things that happened happened.  Tomorrow will unfold however it does, regardless of my personal stance on the issue.

I'm wondering, does it actually matter?  I probably have a lot to learn on this subject so if you simply want to link me to an article that would be great.

It might be useful to know if you want to make Hari Seldon's science of Psychohistory a reality. :)

[stromboli]

Aitm will be on here shortly to explain it to you. he has about the best explanation of it that I have seen.

[Manodo]

This is one of those terms that people throw about quite casually, but when you ask someone to define it they stumble. The response is invariably some play on "the ability to make a choice", but our decisions are based on circumstances and experiences outside of our control. And there is no fundamental difference that I see between a machine recieving an input and generating an output, and myself recieving an input and generating an output.

There is most certainly free will in the sense that we should not allow the decisions people to make be oppressed by some authority, but this applies whether or not I am no more than a very sophisticated machine.

To be honest, I view free will as nothing more than a politically loaded buzzword designed to convince people that gay people make a "choice" to prefer the same sex, that we "choose" to turn away from God, and that we "choose" to go to hell. I never tend to see it outside of a religious or pretentious philosophical context.

[josephpalazzo]

We already had a thread on this:

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3220

[Shol'va]

TL:DR: Shiranu owned the thread.

[Drummer Guy]

TL:DR: Shiranu owned the thread.

I didn't see any posts by shiranu in the other thread.  I may have just missed it (or misunderstand what you are referring to), can you point me to it?

[Shol'va]

viewtopic.php?p=985375#p985375

The incompatibilist debate —which takes it as a postulate that free will and determinism cannot both exist— has never impressed me because nobody has been able to articulate what a 'metaphysically free will' means, how to detect if we have it, nor why having such a thing is desirable. As such, the two sides are quite literally arguing over nothing, and will never produce any conclusion of value.

This is why I am a compatibilist. Until someone can put forward a better definition of free will than 'obeying the law of one's own nature', then I definitely have the only meaningful free will to be had.

:)

In other words, there may not be a "versus" after all ;)

[aitm]

Aitm will be on here shortly to explain it to you. he has about the best explanation of it that I have seen.

 :shock:





 :-k





rum....yep...musta been the rum

[SGOS]

I've never spent any time worrying about whether we have free will or not, because it doesn't seem to matter.  The things that happened happened.  Tomorrow will unfold however it does, regardless of my personal stance on the issue.

Ain't that the truth.  When I first saw people debating the issue, I thought WTF???  I guess it can be interesting from some sort of philosophical standpoint, but practically speaking, whichever viewpoint you have, no matter how hard you defend it, nothing changes.

It presents a massive problem in religious doctrine if the claim of an omniscient God is made concurrent with free will, at least as far as the existence issue, but still, nothing at a practical level changes, and theists aren't bothered by the contradiction.

[Sal1981]

I'm wondering, does it actually matter?

Nope.

At most we have an illusion of free will; at least, fatalism is partly correct. Take your pick.

[Drummer Guy]

http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=985375#p985375

The incompatibilist debate —which takes it as a postulate that free will and determinism cannot both exist— has never impressed me because nobody has been able to articulate what a 'metaphysically free will' means, how to detect if we have it, nor why having such a thing is desirable. As such, the two sides are quite literally arguing over nothing, and will never produce any conclusion of value.

This is why I am a compatibilist. Until someone can put forward a better definition of free will than 'obeying the law of one's own nature', then I definitely have the only meaningful free will to be had.

:)

In other words, there may not be a "versus" after all ;)

I heard the idea of compatiblism when Shelly Kegan mention it in his debate with WLC.  I should explore that a little more I think.

[Aroura33]

Compatibilist just  redefine free will to mean something else entirely (certainly nothing to do with the word free, and little to do with will)...just as Shiranu's post illustrates.  I really feel like they are the "Agnostics" of the debate. They don't want to take sides, be they have taken a side none-the-less.
Which DOES mean they are arguing over nothing.  It seems to me that compatabalists are just stubborn determinists.   :-D

But there are other stances.  People who believe in some sort of Libertarian Free will are just like Biblical literalists, they believe something despite evidence to the contrary.

[Shol'va]

"Compatibilist just redefine free will to mean something else entirely"

When you start a response with that, then really, it should be followed by what the "true" definition of free will is and by what standard, then followed by the clear statement of the re-definition and why it is wrong ;)

And really, shouldn't we take this to that long-ass thread?

[Aroura33]

There are dozens of definitions of free will, but since there is no evidence it exists, there can be no correct definition. Much like god, it is varried and often personal.

But it usually does have something to do with the "free" part.... except for compatabalists, who do seem to realize that there really isn't any room for free choice, so they define it as NOT free choice. Basically, they just play with semantics, but seem to believe basically the same thing as determinist (or incompatabalists).

There are whole books on this topic, and lectures and debates much more sophisticated than any to be had here. Seems like someone else just wants to argue semantics.

p.s., how we view the world affects how we interact with it, so belief in free will or not absolutely DOES affect us. Which is correct won't change, but I firmly believe determinism leads to a more compassionate world view... when people realize that no one chooses to be an addict, an atheist, a theist, etc.