What is the appeal of considering free will an illusion?

Thats interestin... but are you inferrin by that... that som people who hold the position that free will is an illusion... dont hold other people responsible for ther actons an dont espect to be held responsible for ther own actions... no mater what those actions mite be.???

PS
If so... please give a real life esample of somone who has done that... an if you thank it applies... that esample mite even include the behavior of me or Sarkus (who argue the position of free will bein an illusion).!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not hard to find such examples. We don't have drunks anymore, we have alcoholics. We don't have thiefs, we have kleptomaniacs. We don't have whores, we have sex addicts. There are no lazy or stupid children, only children who suffer from ADHD or other learning disorders.

How many murderers, child molesters, and rapists plead insanity or blame their actions on how they were abused as a child? There is no good or evil, everyone is a victim of forces beyond their control (even, and especially, the victimizers).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Thats interestin... but are you inferrin by that... that som people who hold the position that free will is an illusion... dont hold other people responsible for ther actons an dont espect to be held responsible for ther own actions... no mater what those actions mite be.???

PS
If so... please give a real life esample of somone who has done that... an if you thank it applies... that esample mite even include the behavior of me or Sarkus (who argue the position of free will bein an illusion).!!!

Thats also interestin... but sinse you didnt answr my specific queston i dont know if we are on the sam page or not... here agan is you'r prevous statment an my queston about it:::

madanthonywayne---"...an absense of free will absolves you of all responsibility for your actions. Do whatever you want, blame it on deterministic factors beyond your control."

Are you inferrin by that... that som people who hold the position that free will is an illusion... dont hold other people responsible for ther actons an dont espect to be held responsible for ther own actions... no mater what those actions mite be.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd think that my previous answer would make it clear, but YES, I am saying that in the absence of free will there is no responsibility. How can there be?

 

This thred is about the apeal of considerin free will an illusion... my queston is specificaly about people who consider free will an illusion... in the esamples you gave... are you assumin that ther positon is that free will is an illusion.???

 

I'm saying that the appeal (such as it is) of the absence of free will is an absence of responsibility. Do I think that all criminals and reprobates actually subscribe to that theory? No. Most of them have probably never given thei issue much thought. But I do believe they'd cynically jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions.

What's the point of life without choice? Without choice life is meaningless. Those whose life already seems to lack any meaning or direction may find some vindication in the idea that free will is an illusion.

But those who strive to achieve the things they desire and consciously decide to defer gratification for a greater ultimate reward would likely find the idea that free will is an illusion to be anathema.

 

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
This thred is about the apeal of considerin free will an illusion... my queston is specificaly about people who consider free will an illusion... in the esamples you gave... are you assumin that ther positon is that free will is an illusion.???

That woud be my guess... so now you understan that you'r long list of esamples does not address the queston i ask.!!!

Below is you'r statment an my queston agan... keep in mind that my queston applys to people who hold the positon that free will is an illusion.!!!

madanthonywayne---...an absense of free will absolves you of all responsibility for your actions. Do whatever you want, blame it on deterministic factors beyond your control.

"are you inferrin by that... that som people who hold the position that free will is an illusion... dont hold other people responsible for ther actons an dont espect to be held responsible for ther own actions... no mater what those actions mite be.???

PS
If so... please give a real life esample of somone who has done that... an if you thank it applies... that esample mite even include the behavior of me or Sarkus (who argue the position of free will bein an illusion).!!!

 

I think the appeal is simply the feeling of exploring the possible truth of the idea. Truth does not need to be appealing to be true, but there is always some appeal to seeking it.

Besides, as there is no free will, those philosophers had no choice but to pursue the inquiry...right?

I don't see a way around the free will problem, unless one accepts a dualist view of nature--in essence accepting both that there is a soul, and that the soul in some sense must cause physical changes in the brain with each "choice" we make. Even if the brain is shown to be quantum mechanical in some significant underlying feature, that just makes the "outcome" generated by the brain to some degree random, rather than give us a choice of which outcome arises.

I don't find the notion that we have no free will appealing, per se, as that means a significant intuition of mine is faulty. That my sense that I have free will may be an incorrect perception, is either true or it is false, and either way the question is worth pursuing.

 

"Responsibility" is just a word and its definition is key here. I think (and feel free to correct me) you are using it in a moral context that on a certain level simply presumes free will. In essence, one is "responsible" for an action, because one "chose" to take that action. If you did not choose to do a thing, there can be no "responsibility" under that definition.

But there are many other ways to define what we mean by "responsible"... In a deterministic world, it could be that "responsibility" is just a word we use to mean that we are going to treat a person in certain ways for a given sort of action under given circumstances, because it will hopefully modify their future behavior (or modify the behaviors of others aware of the situation).

I think we would all agree, determinists and dualists, that by imposing consequences on people for certain actions, people change their resulting behavior. Neither the imposition of consequences, nor the modification of behavior needs to be a "choice" as such on peoples' parts. Either (or both) could be just a complex reaction which develops in a deterministic way. When ascribing "responsibility" in this view, presumably the real distinction between being "responsible" and "not responsible" is the difference between a situation where imposing consequences on an actor *will* influence his future behavior and one in which imposing consequences *will not* influence future behavior.

A cue ball strikes a set of racked billiard balls (first impact), they scatter every which way, and some of them may bounce back and strike the cue ball (second impact), affecting its path of travel (a modification of its behavior). In a deterministic way the first impact led inexorably to the second impact which led inexorably to the behavioral modification of the cue ball. Social modifications are more complex than that by a long way, but a deterministic chain of events can lead to subsequent actions that in turn influence the initial actor in that chain.

As such, even if we stick with your definition of "responsibility," it is still justifiable (even unavoidable) that we impose consequences on people for their actions. We do it not so that they will "choose" differently in the future, but rather because—without any choice being involved—it can still lead to a world where their actions are different in the future.

Determinism does make automatons of us all, but it doesn't render our behaviors or personalities fixed or unchanging.

 

Succinctly, and very well put.

All too often, people tend to go too far with the implications of strict determinism.

 

What do you thank Pandaemoni means by that... that in a deterministic world... our behaviors or personalities are not determined.???

 

No, not that at all, they would be deterministic by assumption in a deterministic world, but that doesn't mean they are unchanging. For example, consider what is generally understood to be deterministic: simple mechanics. Imagine that an explosion occurs at t=0. At t=1 you look at it and you see a bright blinding light. At t=2 the outer edge of the explosion has cooled on contact with the air, and much of the cloud looks black, with some patches of light shining through from the interior of the could. At t=3, the interior of the cloud has cooled as well, and no more light can be seen. The cloud is also many, many times larger than it was at t=2 and t=1...and at t=0 there was no cloud at all, just an incipient explosion. At t=4 the cloud has dissipated entirely.

The behavior of the cloud is determined by the energy released in the explosion and the interaction of air molecules in a completely deterministic way. It is nonetheless true, that the cloud itself forms and changes in dramatic and very complex ways based on its initial cause and its subsequent interaction with the environment, but those are not evidence that the cloud was not governed by deterministic rules. Chaos theory is the study of complex non-repeating deterministic systems.

So, that something is deterministic still allows for it to be "chaotic" in the mathematical sense. Humans could be guided by a terribly complicated, but completely deterministic "program" that determines our actions. One of the inputs that is determinative of the outputs of that behavioral program is how others around us are behaving. When you pit 6 billion+ programs of that complexity against each other and the general environment, you could get a very complicated set of interactions that could very greatly influence the behavioral output of a given individual over time. The program may never find an equilibrium point and constantly churn out new behaviors. On the other hand (and I think more typical) the program (an individual) could settle into a dynamic equilibrium with others in its environment, where it both settles into a "order" of sorts, and yet still exhibits change over time as the world and others change around him/her.

I am actually not a strict determinist for two reasons: (i) I think there could be a purely random element to our behavior (and in a strict sense that would not be deterministic, though adding a stochastic element to the universe does not imply free will exists) and (ii) I have not come up with a satisfying reason for why we have the illusion of free will built so deeply into our psyches, and I am not sure what advantage a mere illusion would grant us.

 

Knowing how the universe really works. That should be the appeal of all knowledge. Otherwise you can introduce too many biases.

Gain? Pursuit of scientific knowledge is gain enough and is all I really seek on questions like this.

See: "Knowing how the universe really works" above.

From a purely emotional aspect, free will is the more desirable position, just not the one best supported by the evidence.

We are all the product of the evolution of our species. We are also the product of our environment. (Nature & Nurture). Free will an idea put forth by the religions to allow them to have control over the masses. If god were responsible for what we all do then punishment (threat of being sent to hell) because of a lack of belief or because of our actions would not be our fault, it would be gods fault for creating us like this. This is one argument against omnipotence/omniscience of god.

KRR

 

I agree with much of what you say. Are you saying that our emotions prevent us from having free will at times?

Do you think we would benefit from becoming less emotional during conversations of knowledge?

 

I don't agree that free-will is merely an "idea put forth by the religions"... as this implies that without this idea or without religion then we wouldn't claim to have what we consider to be "free-will".

I am of the view that it is an evolved perception that is part and parcel of self-awareness... i.e. I think the two are inseparable... that one can not be self-aware unless one operates under the illusion of free-will.

I therefore can't agree that it has anything whatsoever to do with religion.

 

Not wanting to be a puppet is not too far for a human.

Please, Blue Fairy, make me a real boy!

 

Oh well. Perhaps some day you will catch up with the corollarium of your stance ...

:shrug:

 

An automaton is not exactly a puppet in every context. A "puppet" suggests an intelligent puppetmaster, and we would be rather more like very sophisticated biochemical androids, but possibly without any intelligent designer.

That said, I agree with KRR, we should all consider that free will may be an illusion *not* because it makes us "happy" to ponder that possibility, but simply because it may well be the truth of our existence. Better to live with an uncomfortable truth, than a comforting lie.

To the extent there is greater "happiness" for a determinist (and I'd tend to think of it as the less intense "contentment" rather than happiness), it's the contentment one derives from knowledge and a thorough analysis. To paraphrase something from Doctor Who: That is like 'happy.' for deep people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The best a person can do is to align themselves with "how things really are".
If aligned with "how things really are", there is maximal satisfaction/maximal happiness.
It is therefore logically impossible that the truth would be uncomfortable.
The truth can be experienced as uncomfortable only when in a state of not being aligned with "how things really are".


The counterargument could be made that the world and we are, by our nature, chaotic, evil or inherently disposed to suffering. But such a position implies the existence of an evil designer that is constitutionally separate and different from his creation. Which then requires a justification for the existence of such a creator.

Another counterargument is that the world and we are by our nature empty, neither happy nor suffering. The question to answer then is how we have come to experience happiness and unhappiness.
If the happiness and suffering are illusiory, we have to explain 1. how come this illusion occurs, 2. how can we know it is an illusion, given that we consider ourselves constitutionally subjected to it.

 

And I can not be held accountable for your inability to interpret questions, nor someone's stance, correctly.

I would suggest that if you have no intent on being sensible that you avoid such places.