Free Will/Determinism
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:46 pm
Probably done a million times here... let's make it 1 million and 1. :)
I could be wrong but, with all of the talk about causality, I would assume the prevailing belief here would be determinism?
I never gave it much thought until several years ago. I guess I was aware of determinism and the possibility that free will was an illusion but hadn't decided if I believed determinism or not.
I was at someone's house one night, though, and a guy there (I'm not sure if we were actually talking about free will or not.) (Come to think of it, I believe we were. I think he was a Christian and was trying to prove that free will was true.) mentioned that he could "walk outside and jump in front of a bus right now," if he wanted to. But that he didn't want to. Then it was like a light bulb. I realized that he was not free to jump in front of a bus as he pretended. That in order for him to do so he would have to first "want to" do it. And something would first have to cause him to want to do it.
After that I guess I pretty much considered free will an illusion and determinism to be correct. I occasionally think about it.
I was watching a few videos on it, again, lately and found some interesting comments to think about. Many of them were immature, silly, emotional, knee-jerk reactions from people who were, frankly, angry about the whole idea. They would leave some immature, sarcastic comment about a sentence long that they thought had refuted the scientist's hour-long lecture. Ha.
Common ones I have seen in the past are that determinism is false because that would negate moral responsibility. Well, that doesn't disprove determinism, of course. A good rebuttal to that that I read is that we can still punish people for bad behavior because we are caused to do so! I guess the other common one is that determinism is false because it hurts my feelings. :)
Another in that same vein was a guy snidely talking about how he would use determinism as an excuse when he got caught speeding by the police. Not realizing that the police are still determined to issue him a ticket. Another thought he had refuted determinism because he hates ISIS for committing terrorist attacks and that if free will is an illusion he would have to not hate them since they have no choice but to commit such acts. That instead he would practice his free will and hate them again. I said this is quite the opposite, though. Their acts of terror are what causes him to hate them. If he were actually trying to prove the existence of free will he would do better by trying to love them in spite of their acts.
The final comment is about the lecturer's statements that once we learn that free will is an illusion, we can then make better choices in the future. One example was that the belief under free will is that poor people are poor because they "choose" to be poor, so there is no reason to help them. Once we learn that free will is an illusion and that they don't choose to be poor but are, basically, forced to be poor we can then show more empathy. One commenter said that this is a contradiction. Basically he views the change in people's behavior, or choices, after learning that free will is an illusion is an act of free will itself, since their behaviors and choices have changed. But I believe he is incorrect. (It becomes a tricky thing to put into words.) Their behavior and choices have changed because they were once caused by their belief in free will and are now caused by their belief in determinism. It seems he believes that determinism means things can never change. Like their future is on a rail that can never divert, and new causes cannot be introduced that lead to different outcomes. It just seems he's looking at it wrong. I'm thinking that the knowledge that free will is an illusion would be like in the butterfly effect - that it would change their deterministic future. Therefore, the lecturer is not guilty of contradicting himself.
I could be wrong but, with all of the talk about causality, I would assume the prevailing belief here would be determinism?
I never gave it much thought until several years ago. I guess I was aware of determinism and the possibility that free will was an illusion but hadn't decided if I believed determinism or not.
I was at someone's house one night, though, and a guy there (I'm not sure if we were actually talking about free will or not.) (Come to think of it, I believe we were. I think he was a Christian and was trying to prove that free will was true.) mentioned that he could "walk outside and jump in front of a bus right now," if he wanted to. But that he didn't want to. Then it was like a light bulb. I realized that he was not free to jump in front of a bus as he pretended. That in order for him to do so he would have to first "want to" do it. And something would first have to cause him to want to do it.
After that I guess I pretty much considered free will an illusion and determinism to be correct. I occasionally think about it.
I was watching a few videos on it, again, lately and found some interesting comments to think about. Many of them were immature, silly, emotional, knee-jerk reactions from people who were, frankly, angry about the whole idea. They would leave some immature, sarcastic comment about a sentence long that they thought had refuted the scientist's hour-long lecture. Ha.
Common ones I have seen in the past are that determinism is false because that would negate moral responsibility. Well, that doesn't disprove determinism, of course. A good rebuttal to that that I read is that we can still punish people for bad behavior because we are caused to do so! I guess the other common one is that determinism is false because it hurts my feelings. :)
Another in that same vein was a guy snidely talking about how he would use determinism as an excuse when he got caught speeding by the police. Not realizing that the police are still determined to issue him a ticket. Another thought he had refuted determinism because he hates ISIS for committing terrorist attacks and that if free will is an illusion he would have to not hate them since they have no choice but to commit such acts. That instead he would practice his free will and hate them again. I said this is quite the opposite, though. Their acts of terror are what causes him to hate them. If he were actually trying to prove the existence of free will he would do better by trying to love them in spite of their acts.
The final comment is about the lecturer's statements that once we learn that free will is an illusion, we can then make better choices in the future. One example was that the belief under free will is that poor people are poor because they "choose" to be poor, so there is no reason to help them. Once we learn that free will is an illusion and that they don't choose to be poor but are, basically, forced to be poor we can then show more empathy. One commenter said that this is a contradiction. Basically he views the change in people's behavior, or choices, after learning that free will is an illusion is an act of free will itself, since their behaviors and choices have changed. But I believe he is incorrect. (It becomes a tricky thing to put into words.) Their behavior and choices have changed because they were once caused by their belief in free will and are now caused by their belief in determinism. It seems he believes that determinism means things can never change. Like their future is on a rail that can never divert, and new causes cannot be introduced that lead to different outcomes. It just seems he's looking at it wrong. I'm thinking that the knowledge that free will is an illusion would be like in the butterfly effect - that it would change their deterministic future. Therefore, the lecturer is not guilty of contradicting himself.