We ought to embrace free will

[popeye1945]

Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

I disagree that free will is even possible; it justifies persecution for sins in Christianity and the judicial system, making a subject personally responsible for their psychological condition at any given time. I reject free will; it greatly simplifies religion and the law. It is our limitations that make us resort to such a stance. Context defines even where the individual is concerned, this is the most immediate flaw in the concept. When we come into this world, we come in as an anonymous constitution, devoid of any sense of identity, only with its interaction with its awaiting context does it start to form an identity. If you have not chosen your context, you have not chosen your identity or the formation of your psyche. Living one's life journey should make free will a hard pill to swallow. The sheer complexity of biology and generational and ancestral evolution should cause wonder. Then there is the nature of the organism itself, including humanity as reactionary creatures, for there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction, for that which is motivated behaviour is of necessity reaction, not action. Actions are for the gods or a god. Reaction holds our reality together as one open system or manifestation of what we know not. If it were possible to consider a more human approach to the understanding and governance of the individual, it would be an evolutionary giant step. We as a species have not evolved enough to acknowledge the grand complexity that forges the human psyche. Perhaps one day humanity will be able to take this more humane approach and look back upon its history for the barbarity it justified as necessary.

[Gary Childress]

Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

I disagree that free will is even possible; it justifies persecution for sins in Christianity and the judicial system, making a subject personally responsible for their psychological condition at any given time. I reject free will; it greatly simplifies religion and the law. It is our limitations that make us resort to such a stance. Context defines even where the individual is concerned, this is the most immediate flaw in the concept. When we come into this world, we come in as an anonymous constitution, devoid of any sense of identity, only with its interaction with its awaiting context does it start to form an identity. If you have not chosen your context, you have not chosen your identity or the formation of your psyche. Living one's life journey should make free will a hard pill to swallow. The sheer complexity of biology and generational and ancestral evolution should cause wonder. Then there is the nature of the organism itself, including humanity as reactionary creatures, for there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction, for that which is motivated behaviour is of necessity reaction, not action. Actions are for the gods or a god. Reaction holds our reality together as one open system or manifestation of what we know not. If it were possible to consider a more human approach to the understanding and governance of the individual, it would be an evolutionary giant step. We as a species have not evolved enough to acknowledge the grand complexity that forges the human psyche. Perhaps one day humanity will be able to take this more humane approach and look back upon its history for the barbarity it justified as necessary.

My thought when I posted this was that if we don't hold ourselves responsible for our actions, then we might be more prone to act irresponsibly. Of course, I have no evidence to back the belief, so I may be wrong.

[popeye1945]

Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

I disagree that free will is even possible; it justifies persecution for sins in Christianity and the judicial system, making a subject personally responsible for their psychological condition at any given time. I reject free will; it greatly simplifies religion and the law. It is our limitations that make us resort to such a stance. Context defines even where the individual is concerned, this is the most immediate flaw in the concept. When we come into this world, we come in as an anonymous constitution, devoid of any sense of identity, only with its interaction with its awaiting context does it start to form an identity. If you have not chosen your context, you have not chosen your identity or the formation of your psyche. Living one's life journey should make free will a hard pill to swallow. The sheer complexity of biology and generational and ancestral evolution should cause wonder. Then there is the nature of the organism itself, including humanity as reactionary creatures, for there is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction, for that which is motivated behaviour is of necessity reaction, not action. Actions are for the gods or a god. Reaction holds our reality together as one open system or manifestation of what we know not. If it were possible to consider a more human approach to the understanding and governance of the individual, it would be a giant evolutionary step. We as a species have not evolved enough to acknowledge the grand complexity that forges the human psyche. Perhaps one day humanity will be able to take this more humane approach and look back upon its history for the barbarity it justified as necessary.

My thought when I posted this was that if we don't hold ourselves responsible for our actions, then we might be more prone to act irresponsibly. Of course, I have no evidence to back the belief, so I may be wrong.

Hi Gary,
It is natural for humans to assume we have free will, if not closely examined. One can realize the injustice of treating people as though they are in total control of their own lives and the development of the individual psyche. Certainly, those who would harm others in society or harm society itself must nevertheless be dealt with or confined for the protection of others. A certain level of responsibility for one's actions, or rather reactions, is not unreasonable. At the same time, we must realize the complexity of mere existence and take the most humane approach our minds and hearts can embrace. Many of the same measures might still have to be used to control those who would violate the morals and standards of society, but with a different mindset, a more compassionate mindset, even for those who lack compassion.

[promethean75]

"Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do."

This is redundant because you can't act as if you don't have freewill. You can no sooner feel like you didn't just choose to stand up when you stood up than you can not feel like the guy who just stole a car did so freely, knew it was wrong, and should be punished.

"Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions"

... and yet, whether or not one is responsible, there are consequences anyway. So then, what does it matter if the thief is held responsible or not when he goes to jail just the same?

Ah. The history of criminal justice has always stood on a consequentialist foundation regardless of the courtroom sophistry about freewill and 'knowing it was wrong to do x".

So what exactly is the prob here, Gary?

[popeye1945]

"Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do."

This is redundant because you can't act as if you don't have freewill. You can no sooner feel like you didn't just choose to stand up when you stood up than you can not feel like the guy who just stole a car did so freely, knew it was wrong, and should be punished.
"Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions"
... and yet, whether or not one is responsible, there are consequences anyway. So then, what does it matter if the thief is held responsible or not when he goes to jail just the same? Ah. The history of criminal justice has always stood on a consequentialist foundation regardless of the courtroom sophistry about freewill and 'knowing it was wrong to do x".
So what exactly is the prob here, Gary?

There is every reason to believe that we are not entirely responsible for the state of our psyche or the storyline of our lives. Still, we need to acknowledge the necessity of controlling the individuals who pose a problem to the safety of others or society. The difference is that the present way of doing things evokes no compassion whatsoever. Understanding that we are largely defined by our biological constitution and the context that defines it, we are free through our understanding to have compassion for our fellows. What we do of necessity to those who violate society's morals and standards is done with a basic understanding of the nature of existence. I would venture to say that a great many of those in prison are there because they are ill-adapted to survive in the complexity of the society in which they were born. We are all the ultimate in innocence coming into this world, but the world is a dangerous place; for some, it is nurturing, for others, it is poison.

[Belinda]

Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

How free are you? It would be silly act as though you were free to run and jump and dance when your leg is broken. It would be silly act as though you were free to be a brain surgeon when you have no scientific education. It would be silly to act as though you always have made sensible decisions .It would be silly to feel no regret or remorse . You absolutely can try not to be silly when you are convinced of the truth of determinism.

Determinism includes the future is an open future. It follows that one's trajectory can be changed often with the help of educators or friends.

It goes without saying that will is voluntary , that's simply tautological. With the best will possible not all actions are possible for any individual.

[Walker]

How free are you? It would be silly act as though you were free to run and jump and dance when your leg is broken. It would be silly act as though you were free to be a brain surgeon when you have no scientific education. It would be silly to act as though you always have made sensible decisions .It would be silly to feel no regret or remorse . You absolutely can try not to be silly when you are convinced of the truth of determinism.

Determinism includes the future is an open future. It follows that one's trajectory can be changed often with the help of educators or friends.

It goes without saying that will is voluntary , that's simply tautological. With the best will possible not all actions are possible for any individual.

That's quite clear, and it relates to life rather than a chessboard.

How free? Like a great actor embracing method acting, embracing the illusion of free will empowers the sense, the view, and the attitude that one is separate from nature, able to conquer and tame natural processes (e.g. sex change attempts), and this is based on separation from chaos with human as the manifest agent of order, for the purpose of advancing the quantitative quality of life, extending individual lifespans which promotes the invasiveness of the species … all made possible by the big plan set in motion and playing out through the inevitability of causation. At least, that's how I figure it ... based on a lived life.

[Walker]

[Belinda]

How free are you? It would be silly act as though you were free to run and jump and dance when your leg is broken. It would be silly act as though you were free to be a brain surgeon when you have no scientific education. It would be silly to act as though you always have made sensible decisions .It would be silly to feel no regret or remorse . You absolutely can try not to be silly when you are convinced of the truth of determinism.

Determinism includes the future is an open future. It follows that one's trajectory can be changed often with the help of educators or friends.

It goes without saying that will is voluntary , that's simply tautological. With the best will possible not all actions are possible for any individual.

That's quite clear, and it relates to life rather than a chessboard.

How free? Like a great actor embracing method acting, embracing the illusion of free will empowers the sense, the view, and the attitude that one is separate from nature, able to conquer and tame natural processes (e.g. sex change attempts), and this is based on separation from chaos with human as the manifest agent of order, for the purpose of advancing the quantitative quality of life, extending individual lifespans which promotes the invasiveness of the species … all made possible by the big plan set in motion and playing out through the inevitability of causation. At least, that's how I figure it ... based on a lived life.

What Walker desires to happen must indeed be free of all constraints. Not.

[Walker]

What Walker desires to happen must indeed be free of all constraints. Not.

Walker thinks it’s interesting, what folks need to say. Quite often, with what folks say as evidence, Walker has noticed that when viewing form while saying, folks are often perceiving and speaking to memories.

[Belinda]

What Walker desires to happen must indeed be free of all constraints. Not.

Walker thinks it’s interesting, what folks need to say. Quite often, with what folks say as evidence, Walker has noticed that when viewing form while saying, folks are often perceiving and speaking to memories.

The above reply from you is evidence you are constrained by a lack of desire to use plain English.

[Walker]

What Walker desires to happen must indeed be free of all constraints. Not.

Walker thinks it’s interesting, what folks need to say. Quite often, with what folks say as evidence, Walker has noticed that when viewing form while saying, folks are often perceiving and speaking to memories.

The above reply from you is evidence you are constrained by a lack of desire to use plain English.

One person's constraint is other's liberation.

Being constrained oneself contaminates the evidence.

(6 x 2)

[Belinda]

Walker thinks it’s interesting, what folks need to say. Quite often, with what folks say as evidence, Walker has noticed that when viewing form while saying, folks are often perceiving and speaking to memories.

The above reply from you is evidence you are constrained by a lack of desire to use plain English.

One person's constraint is other's liberation.

Being constrained oneself contaminates the evidence.

(6 x 2)

Telecommunications done properly according to the best rules include that the transmitter is responsible for transmitting a clear message. If you feel my transmission is at fault, please simply ask for a plain and specific explanation .

[Walker]

Telecommunications done properly according to the best rules include that the transmitter is responsible for transmitting a clear message. If you feel my transmission is at fault, please simply ask for a plain and specific explanation .

The way I figure it, although you quote me before your comment, you're speaking to posterity or a specific someone else, 'cause I got me no problem puzzling over your words just the way they are, Ms. Belinda. The advantage to that is finding meanings that perhaps you didn't even suspect but would invariably be considered wrong by you, because they're foreign, and not exactly what you thought you were expressing. Should I ever feel the need to explain your words, I'll let you know that I'm rephrasing. High five, and shake.

[Walker]

One person's constraint is other's liberation.

Being constrained oneself contaminates the evidence.

Ms. Belinda, I invite you to clearly express what you think is the meaning of these two stand-alone statements, because the words are simple, everyday language ...

unlike this
https://pimaopen.pressbooks.pub/introph ... key-terms/