Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Sculptor]

It only does that when rich lawyer are present. Ordinary people just get thrown in gaol.

That's not true. Americans are judged by our peers, a jury. Usually Justice prevails. Juries rule against rich lawyers sometimes too.

Have you any idea how penal systems and incarceration rates vary across the world?

One society outlaws jaywalking, another does not. One society lets murderers out of jail freely, another does not. Every society is different.

Tell me the society you would like.

Clearly you have not really thought much about this issue.

[popeye1945]

How can one assume in free will, when one does not know what one's next thought is going to be?

Because you don't need to know the future, to have free-will?

So, is free will mindless?

[popeye1945]

All this is also true. What causes intransigent lack of insight into one's own biases?

I would put it at 1 in 100 people have the capacity for self-consciousness or self-awareness, to become aware of one's own biases.

Then another 1 in 100, of that group, to apply logic and reason to these biases, sourcing their causes, and relating them to others'.

So you're talking about 1 in 10,000 people. Self-consciousness is very rare in Nature, and in Humans, not the norm or commonplace at all.

EXCELLENT!

[phyllo]

All this is also true. What causes intransigent lack of insight into one's own biases?

I would put it at 1 in 100 people have the capacity for self-consciousness or self-awareness, to become aware of one's own biases.

Then another 1 in 100, of that group, to apply logic and reason to these biases, sourcing their causes, and relating them to others'.

So you're talking about 1 in 10,000 people. Self-consciousness is very rare in Nature, and in Humans, not the norm or commonplace at all.

EXCELLENT!

Fake numbers are excellent??

[popeye1945]

I would put it at 1 in 100 people have the capacity for self-consciousness or self-awareness, to become aware of one's own biases.

Then another 1 in 100, of that group, to apply logic and reason to these biases, sourcing their causes, and relating them to others'.

So you're talking about 1 in 10,000 people. Self-consciousness is very rare in Nature, and in Humans, not the norm or commonplace at all.

EXCELLENT!

Fake numbers are excellent??

Your mother is not home right now is she, she would be most upset if she knew you were using her computer again.

[popeye1945]

How can one assume in free will, when one does not know what one's next thought is going to be?

Because you don't need to know the future, to have free-will?

Bear with me a moment, when you speak of free will, what do you mean, what is the will then free of?

[Wizard22]

Bear with me a moment, when you speak of free will, what do you mean, what is the will then free of?

I am very glad you framed your question that way. This is the quintessential Determinist error when it comes to free-will. You asked what the will is free "from", not what the will is free "to" do.

So your question infers that freedom is Negative, not Positive. Freedom from versus Freedom to.

Determinists seem to believe that you need to be free "from" your biological needs (like hunger), in order to be free. This is false. Freedom must include BOTH positive AND negative. So it's not only what you would be free "from", hypothetically. But it is also about what you are free "to" do, in order to fulfill biological needs. This means that free-will revolves around Drive/Motive (Willpower) and Capability (Freedom). Some individuals have a very large degree of choices, and, higher quality choices.

When it comes to freedom, you want the most amount of Power (Power = Choice). More power = More choice = More freedom.

[Wizard22]

Subsequently, I've heard this countless times from Determinists, that "it's good free-will doesn't exist because imagine what people would do". Meaning of course, the implication is that lawlessness and crime would necessarily ensue. These Determinists signal that human laws are the primary constraint of free-will. The implication is that Mankind is a savage, evil, cruel beast, that must be suppressed and contained.

Are these Determinists correct? And how so?

[popeye1945]

Bear with me a moment, when you speak of free will, what do you mean, what is the will then free of?

I am very glad you framed your question that way. This is the quintessential Determinist error when it comes to free will. You asked what the will is free "from", not what the will is free "to" do.

So your question infers that freedom is Negative, not Positive. Freedom from versus Freedom to.

Determinists seem to believe that you need to be free "from" your biological needs (like hunger), in order to be free. This is false. Freedom must include BOTH positive AND negative. So, it's not only what you would be free "from", hypothetically. But it is also about what you are free "to" do, in order to fulfill biological needs. This means that free-will revolves around Drive/Motive (Willpower) and Capability (Freedom). Some individuals have a very large degree of choices, and higher quality choices.

When it comes to freedom, you want the most amount of Power (Power = Choice). More power = More choice = More freedom.

The popular definition of free will is the ability to act independently of any prior event or state of the Universe, which in my opinion is simplistically absurd. My opinion, however, is not a common belief, for I do not believe that there is any such thing as human action, meaning all physical endeavors are reactions. There is no such thing as unmotivated physical movement unless one is speaking of an involuntary epileptic movement and motivated movement spell's reaction not action. The idea that one could be free of the physical world as a cause is just nonsense, for all organisms are reactionary creatures, this is the essence of evolutionary adaptation. It is also frightfully egocentric, and an absurd orientation to being in the world or of the world. It really doesn't matter how many choices one has in a given circumstance; the cause would always be the physical world, for we are of it as a governed part of it.

It is some kind of law that seems to be missing in popular thought, for even one's health is dependent upon the reality that we are reactionary beings and our biology is a reactionary system. All disease is a reaction to either a chemical or biological invasion of the body and our immune system is of course, that reaction of the body to protect itself. There is of course injury or just things wearing out, but the dis-ease thus caused is again, reaction to damage and/or malfunction. The body also reacts to the lack of nutrients, vitamins and food in general, but it's all reactions of a reactionary system. I would be most surprised if this was not a basic principle in psychology, but if so, why is it not generally understood?

If one wishes to understand the behaviors of an individual or of a nation, for the nation is but a biological extension, an expression of the nature of humanity, we must ask ourselves what is that individual reacting to, what is that nation reacting to? You are in my world, thus to me you are cause to my reactions as I to yours. I am thinking too, that such a change in perspective might have a profound effect on the psyche and behavior of humanity towards the earth, it would have to make a cognitive rearrangement of the gray matter. The will to power as free will seems the most relevant between the haves and the have-nots, but that again is our governing outer world.

[Wizard22]

I wouldn't call them "Reactions", but I do agree that nothing exists in a vacuum, which is to say that every "action" is part of the timeline of the universe. Everything is connected, therefore interactive. Action, Reaction, Interaction.

The main problem I see, is how people have fundamental misunderstanding of how the brain works, with regard to Cognition. The human brain produces a 'backward' effect when it comes to Consciousness. This means that humans are better at looking at the 'past', then preparing for and predicting the 'future'. People have bias toward the once-was, over the up-and-coming. Therefore people place Certainty in the past, rather than in the future.

To me, this is logically incorrect. It seems like the right thing to do, based on how mammals evolve, but it has a critically false premise. It presumes that Physics, the Universe, Existence, can fundamentally change over a period of time, that disrupts Everything else. Humans have an 'apocalyptic' or 'cataclysmic' type of fear, within the brain. This clouds reasoning and judgment. It presumes that, because I die, so too must the rest of Existence. It is similar to a desperate man drowning, willing to take the entire ship and others down with him. I link these to Solipsism, Nihilism, Fatalism, Determinism, and the Death-Drive.

What's the alternative?

The Alternative is that the universe, Existence, is bigger than you or I or humanity or even the meager notion of 'God'. It means that our ignorance, is insignificant, and must be overcome.

Presume that the Rationalists were correct, starting with Aristotle. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. All energy is conserved. Natural Law preexists the conscious mind: existence est principle.


When viewed this way, the Determinists are simply wrong every step of the way. They have a bias, to want to end (their own) "free-will" from the start, from the premise. Like an Atheist attacking God, they re-write the definition on their terms (Flying Spaghetti Monster) so as to render it logically impossible. Then it's a one-way philosophical debate: a monologue. You're debating a religious fundamentalist, a closed-mind.

To become free, means to delimit oneself in this way.

[Wizard22]

In other words, people need to 'undo' their mental compulsions and mental laziness. It means exercising the brain.

[Iwannaplato]

Subsequently, I've heard this countless times from Determinists, that "it's good free-will doesn't exist because imagine what people would do". Meaning of course, the implication is that lawlessness and crime would necessarily ensue. These Determinists signal that human laws are the primary constraint of free-will. The implication is that Mankind is a savage, evil, cruel beast, that must be suppressed and contained.

Are these Determinists correct? And how so?

I've never heard a determinist here or on any other philosophy forum say that it's a good thing free will doesn't exist. I've only seen them argue that it doesn't exist. Sometimes they think there's a problem with believing in free will and I have seen their hypotheses on this explained. IOW I think you're hallucination or generalizing from a few instances of inidividual determinists making this claim. And since they are all aware of, for example, The Holocaust and Stalin and Mao, as just a few examples, and then all the serial killers, etc., it would be a strange thing to say. Determinists obviously believe that the worst possible behavior is possible without free will.

Can you link to any determinists who have argued that it's good there is no free will?

People can assert all sorts of things but...

The implication is that Mankind is a savage, evil, cruel beast, that must be suppressed and contained.

How could determinism possibly make this go away. If determinists think humans are like this, then they think this will get acted out.

You seem to be conflating free will with having no rules or laws.

You're likely off topic.

But yeah, provide some evidence for what you are asserting here. Show us some determinists who argue it's good there is no free will.

[Wizard22]

You missed the point entirely.

The point is that Determinists admit that human Laws govern, dictate, and literally 'determine' human behaviors, which is opposite the point made in the title.

[Flannel Jesus]

These posts by this guy really have me scratching my head. It's as if he's talking about something else entirely...

[Advocate]

[quote=BigMike post_id=600306 time=1665130162 user_id=22744]
Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society. For example,
[list=1]
[*]do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?
[*]do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
[*]is it true that compatibilists tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
[*]Is it true that compatibilists usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?
[/list]
Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.
[/quote]

Most people don't give more than five minutes of thought to this subject in their entire lives. They presume their experience of freedom is real and that's that. And there's no reason they'd question it because the vast majority have always concurred.

There is no sense in which the will is free. We feel free to exactly the extent we are ignorant of causality.

Aka Ignorance is bliss. It's a sliding scale.