Free Will

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the creator of the universe, but I'm crazy so I feel like I am. So effectively I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the idea of free will is effective. Many people just can't understand that their choices can be meaningful and can still be determined - it's important for them to believe their choices are meaningful, and therefore it can be useful for them to believe those choices aren't determined.

We effectively have free will because the consequence of free will (that our choices affect outcomes) is accurate. It's hard to reach the conclusion that our choices affect outcomes based on purely deterministic thinking (though it is more rational that way).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Before free will discussed in any kind of fashion, please define it first.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

Once you define it, the rest of the discussion is pretty moot, no?

The idea of "free will" is all pretty irrelevant I guess. It's just a matter of perception. All that really matters is "When I do X, the result is A."

So I mean, it might be fun to philosophize about these things, but I would say defining what we mean by "free will" is basically the extent of the discussion. Once you make it clear how you're looking at it, there isn't much else to debate.

The answer is yes and no at the same time. Ultimately we're confined to (by objective standards) a very narrow range of options, but since this range is all that's important to us, we have freedom to act within the range of what matters based on our own assessments.

[soon2bepro]

The problem with accepting free will is that once you accept that people's actions and even their wishes are determined, you begin to see a whole new side to responsibility. Soon you are forced to conclude that blame and accomplishment are senseless concepts other than for their deterrence/incentive capabilities, and that therefore, concepts like justice, morality, ethics, etc... Are fundamentally flawed.

I'm prepared to accept that. Are you?

If you aren't, you will likely stick to the mystical concept of free will. Or maybe you will just avoid thinking too hard about the implications.

[madnak]

Blame and accomplishment are pretty senseless, regardless of your view on free will...

[Subfallen]

A self-conscious(?) entity with a quasi-reliable memory will perceive itself to have free will if it cannot predict its actions with complete certainty.

Even if that perception is proved wrong, the entity will still experience "free will."

[soon2bepro]

As a sidenote:

While determinism is used as a strong argument against free will, have in mind that people who propose free will as true, do not merely propose the lack of a totally deterministic universe, they in fact propose a partially uncaused universe. They propose that will is not affected in any way by any portion of reality.

While this lack of causality is no proof that it's not true, the proposition is of a kind of phenomena that's fundamentally different to every other phenomena that we've encountered. Such a proposition requires immense evidence, yet free-will advocators provide none whatsoever.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Blame and accomplishment are pretty senseless, regardless of your view on free will...

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if that perception is proved wrong, the entity will still experience "free will."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here you're defining free will as merely a feeling or a state of mind. That's not the traditional definition.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with accepting free will is that once you accept that people's actions and even their wishes are determined, you begin to see a whole new side to responsibility. Soon you are forced to conclude that blame and accomplishment are senseless concepts other than for their deterrence/incentive capabilities, and that therefore, concepts like justice, morality, ethics, etc... Are fundamentally flawed.

I'm prepared to accept that. Are you?

If you aren't, you will likely stick to the mystical concept of free will. Or maybe you will just avoid thinking too hard about the implications.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. My argument basically suggests "free will" does NOT truly exist. It's just that the incentives to us are such where we may as well act as though it does. I know if I choose to jump off a building, I will die. And that's all that's relevant to the decision.

"Morality," "justice," and "ethics" are also just empty words that refer to real consequences.

You seem very confused.

Maybe the universe is nothing more than an atom inside the toe nail of a giant! ZOMG!!! But it doesn't change the fact that I have a will to live and to be happy, and that I will evaluate my decisions based on what I determine is most likely to satisfy me. Whether or not this meets the definition of "free will" just depends on perspective.

I'll grant you that ultimately "free will" does not exist. There is certainly some sort of order to the world that surrounds us, and no one is breaking it. But that's the epitome of a semantical claim. It's just like saying "ultimately nothing matters." Uh, OK. But from our perspective, we do have the ability to make decisions and to experience the results of them. So, in some sense "free will" clearly does exist too. It all depends on what exactly one means by it.