I’m noticing that people who are pro-government often don’t believe in free will, and vice versa for free market supporters. Anybody noticed this in their interactions?
Socialism functions by offering what people need, thereby determining their happiness. Free markets are determined by voluntary transactions that consumers and producers manifest through individual will.
But some people in my class say free will doesn’t exist, which is a ridiculous claim but difficult to disprove.
Thoughts?
Have you checked out the “blank posts” section of the newbie thread yet?
If free will doesn’t exist, why do we bother with government? People are going to do what they want to do anyway.
I have asked my religious family this kind of thing. Why is 9/11 a bad thing if it is part of God’s will? We could have never prevented it. And in that act of stopping anyone from doing anything else, are you subverting their free will or are you not conscious of your act? Are you a mere instrument?
It would rely on the dissolution of body from mind. In that, your mind is controlling your body and actions and your mind is also independent of your mental control. No wonder they are pro-government. They think that everyone is a psychotic.
Having said that, it sounds as if there is a certain level of theology that is present in your “class.”
Isn’t the onus on them to prove that there is no such thing as free will? What controls their actions if not them?
So the Blank Posts section just says to copy text before posting, but it doesn’t say how to get beyond posting a new discussion topic and having it come up blank. Is there a secret I missed? I read the section twice.
“If this happens to you, sorry, there is no way (we know of) to recover your brilliant prose. Here and here are quick threads with the basic recommendation: use a different browser.”
What browser do you use? And what sort of device do you use to access this website?
I see. I use Internet Explorer. You use Firefox?
Good point. I guess there’s just no way to reason with people who don’t want to reason.
Keep reading that same post…
“Here and here are quick threads with the basic recommendation: use a different browser. Firefox and Chrome/Chromium don’t seem to have any issues. (So join the new millenium and quit with the Internet Explorer, you laggard.)”
You seriously read it twice?
Libertarians and free market supporters tend to be much more individualistic, either deriving this from or deriving from this their feelings about free will. To accept free will is usually synonymous with accepting the power and significance of the individual, while at the same time it is difficult for someone to accept the importance of an individual without accepting the fact that the individual actually exists and can change the world.
Reverse this and you can see the more socialistic side of the matter.
With all this said I don’t see that there’s even a possibility that free will exists… Call me an exception to the rule 
Why? Is ‘something etheral’ compelling you to type on this forum? Wouldn’t you rather be … I guess it doesn’t matter what you’d “rather” be doing…?
“Is ‘something etheral’ compelling you to type on this forum?”
What? I’m typing here because I prefer it over all my percieved alternatives.
“Wouldn’t you rather be … I guess it doesn’t matter what you’d “rather” be doing…?”
The fact that I can only do what I prefer vindicates the deterministic theory. I must do what is higher in my value preferences. How are my value preferences formed? Through the functioning of my mind. What dictates how this functions? The inherent functions of my brain as determined by chemical/molecular formation of the organ and what happens to stimulate it. To accept the doctrine of free will is to deny all the laws of causality that human action is based around.
I’m not sure that is a fact.
I don’t understand how or why the acceptance that your mind can put physiological stimuli in a preference scale is indicative of “denying all the laws of causality.” In other words you are a slave to whatever is directly around you? (As opposed to being a slave of that which is not around you, is not my point). I’d say that the overwhelming majority of conscious thought is based on this, but not all. I’m not arguing that existential constraint doesn’t play a factor either, it is just not all of it. Recogintion of one’s existential constraints is what allows the mind space to do its thing. Imagine.
You must be defining will itself as etheral, no? Seriously, define ‘will’.
What law of causality governs the existence of physical reality in the first place? I can see math formulae all around, but what makes any of it relevant or more reasonable in explaination?
You seem to say, “It doesn’t matter. It is as is.”
Physiological stimuli need not be the only process of the mind. Being pricked by a needle tells you the same thing, psychologically, that being hungry does, that the body reacts to things around it, indicating preference on a primal level (not being pricked by a needle and not being hungry; pain). It is in no way related to the process of mind during, and even leading to, meditative states, love, self-actualization (art), etc.
Spiritualism, which was not the angle I was coming from, would be a consequence of those same ‘forces’ of nature that makes fire hurt and Earth spin, ie the human being. Cognition itself must be part of the process of deterministic causation. Thus, everything that stems from it must also be (any and every idea). Acceptance or denial of free will is to admit its existence. If you have free will then all is fine. If you do not, what reasonable explanation could there be for deciding that you do not? You recognize the existential limitation of will and then choose to deny yourself the ability to order your preference scale with it. It seems like a way to distance oneself from morality and the Sade-esque ‘pleasure as virtue pinnacle’ thing. I cannot remember who, maybe it was Roman Philosopher, said that ‘…even slaves can be free. While their bodies are shackled they are free to wander in mind.’
To deny free will is to say that the mind is incapable of independent thought (virtually necessitating behaviorist physiological determinism, I suppose).
“I’m not sure that is a fact.”
So you deny all aspects of Austrian Economics?
“I don’t understand how or why the acceptance that your mind can put physiological stimuli in a preference scale is indicative of “denying all the laws of causality.””
It’s not, I’m saying that the fact that the mind does and must do this is proof of determinism. If you deny that it does do this then we have bigger problems on our hands. If you deny that this is directly caused by the physical makeup of the universe then you have implicitly denied the laws of causality.
“I’d say that the overwhelming majority of conscious thought is based on this, but not all. I’m not arguing that existential constraint doesn’t play a factor either, it is just not all of it. Recogintion of one’s existential constraints is what allows the mind space to do its thing. Imagine.”
I believe I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think it directly has to do with what I am arguing. I am saying that the mind only functions as a result of its physiological construction, and that therefore its actions are predetermined based upon its own buildup. Do you deny the mind’s formation as a result of the actions of the brain?
“Seriously, define ‘will’.”
The feeling of uneasiness which compels and individual into action.
"What law of causality governs the existence of physical reality in the first place? I can see math formulae all around, but what makes any of it relevant or more reasonable in explaination?
You seem to say, “It doesn’t matter. It is as is.”"
Sorry, but what are you trying to say here?
"Physiological stimuli need not be the only process of the mind. "
The things which the mind focus on are not all matters dealing with the physical world, indeed I’d argue that most people’s concerns are a combination of emotional and more “theoretical” concerns. This is not what I am arguing, what I am arguing is that what the mind does think about is determined upon the physical universe, because the mind exists as a result of actions from within the brain.
" If you do not, what reasonable explanation could there be for deciding that you do not?"
The fact that my mind has decided, based upon its model of the universe, that free will does not exist. Believing that your conceptions and will are formed by independent sources rather than some internal mysticism is in no way contradictory. To give a metaphor: Just because you are looking out of your own eyes does not mean you cannot see yourself in a mirror. Just because the mind is based entirely upon physical cause and effect, does not mean that the mind does not work as we believe it to. We know the ultimate foundation from whence its functions originate, this does not change how we believe that it acts.
" It seems like a way to distance oneself from morality and the Sade-esque ‘pleasure as virtue pinnacle’ thing. I cannot remember who, maybe it was Roman Philosopher, said that ‘…even slaves can be free. While their bodies are shackled they are free to wander in mind.’ "
Morality is a bunk concept whether or not free will exists. But at any rate, I’d argue that, because we are ignorant of the way in which a deterministic universe would work, what the forces would ultimately be leading to, we would not be able to understand or change what was going on, and therefore although free will would not exist, this would not change the way that we acted.
"To deny free will is to say that the mind is incapable of independent thought "
And? The human mind is subject to cause and effect. Why is it that the rest of the universe is subject to this process, but when the human mind is reached it is suddenly the only thing in the universe which is self perpetuated?
No (I’ll explain below)…you said “The fact that I can only do what I prefer.” I was not talking about ‘rationality’. You are certainly capable of doing things that you do not prefer. You prefer them because there are unwanted alternatives. Your wife could drag you to the botanical garden. You would prefer to be somewhere else, but the mental condition of your self to the physcial and mental condition of your wife retains you. Sure, you prefer the love of your wife, but love takes places in both a mental and physical state. You do not prefer to do certain things in the physical world and even when your wife is not present you may behave in a way as if she is (voluntary self denial). This is entirely mental. Your wife could be dead and you still hindered in physical behavior due to your mental state as well.
Okay. I didn’t think your point was so broad. Predetermination is a stretch. So we really cannot stop anything in the world from happening? Everything from the Holocaust to things lke 9/11 and the steam engine are predetermined to happen at certain evolutionary stages of … nature?
Mises. I should have guessed.
Look at phi ratio. What gives it dimension?! Scale?!
I mean to say that, physical existence seems to have a finite aspect to it. Did the sequence of natural events that culminate in the creation of the human brain, and thus the debate we are having, just…start? Or is it the consequence of something? As far as I know the big bang has no explanation. (S. Hawkings seems to make little sense to me. “Gravity created time”? And what created gravity when the big bang occured? Time?) Determinism is defeated at its conception since all of physical reality seemed to leap into existence. Now, I do not think that about Earthly nature, but only ‘universal’ nature. (I would almost like to call it etheral existence) (When I refer to ‘existential contraints’ I refer to the concession of determinstic fatalism in earthly physiological/biological process. I do not concede that humans have the same mental capacity as a deer).
Determinism is not all encompassing if we are talking about metaphysical things. If we admit, or concede, the point that will is limited by the trappings of physical reality, then what allows for us to theorize things unrelated to physical reality, God, free will, morality, love, justice, philosphy, art, etc.? If we notice throughout history only well off people (people who are wealthy and thus have all or most of their sustenance accounted for) and those that have sworn off (?) material pleasure are the ones who have discussed this. Just as Plato said, ‘born a bronze soul, die a bronze soul’.
I’ll agree that morality is only a subjective invention. But how can you say we are ignorant of the process in which a deterministic universe works? Aren’t you describing that very thing in relation to a non extant free will? Haven’t we determined a good number of the basic axioms of existence (except its ultimate)? This also is back to separating the concept of will from existential constraints. If you are contemplating the universe or the very nature of physical reality, something to which you admit ignorance of in its totality, you can still have free will within the subest of physical or existential reality. Your example is outside of that.
And, if morality is totally bunk (I agree with the subjectivity of it, but morality is observed by every society in different capacities. It is a universal social phenomenon) then what is to be made of love, justice, or any other abstraction? (particulary love) Writing off these simply as bunk is ignoring a mental phenomenon that has some basis in physical existence, but some is not at all. And that section that is “not all” has the power to completely dominate cultures. Can that possibly be an illusion? If it is recognized by enough people? Independent to one another or not?
After all, we can observe them, they are us. So you would say that if a rich kid grew up the son of a banker and decided on his 33rd birthday to give away all of his money to random charities, that this behavior is due to the fact that he grew up as the son of a banker and had felt this way his whole life (or even if he didn’t his earlier life would be setting the stage for his decision on his 33rd). His pretermined ‘fate’, his ‘kizmet’, was ‘decided’ when he was a zygote and his dad made all of the money and all of the choices he made with the kid. What is the point in 9/11 and the security state, fighting against illegitimate authority, etc.? Our fight for something is met with negation from every angle due to this.
It is a cop out to nihilism in its totality. I expect a nihilistic respons the what ‘is below’. (‘as above’…)
As I said earlier, the big bang lacks a legitimate cause…(at least as we understand it; the scientists tell us). So, no. The human mind is not the only thing that self perpetuates. Energy itself is a constant recycling of itself, right? It is way outside of our existential perception due to short biological lifespans, but we have nevertheless concluded this through intimation with the process. Time seems to do that, right? Or maybe time is only an existential observation? It hardly seems that time would cease if humanity did.
Are you serious? That’s not will. If you define will as something that passive, in your view it doesn’t exist.
Take this scenario: A soldier is ordered to use his sniper rifle to kill somebody as 300 yards away. He is given a name, a photo, pinpoints the target’s location, doesn’t know why he should kill him . . . he’s simply following the order. The soldier shoots the man, kills him and fulfills the mission.
Question: did the soldier kill the man by his own free will?
I say yes because he aimed the gun and pulled the trigger. Did anybody else aim the gun and pull the trigger? No. Could the soldier have decided to not shoot the man? Yes. That means he is responsible.
To deny free will is to deny responsibility for action. In this specific example, would you say that the soldier that shot the target (the man he was ordered to shoot) is somehow not responsible for his action? Please explain your approach to this situation and where, if at all, free will occurs.
One of the more interesting ideas about free will is this: if there is no free will, why do we punish those who murder, cheat and steal? They had no choice in the matter.
Just wanted to chime in on this thread:
There is a valid point in the argument that we do not have free will - chemicals and brain interactions are what determines our choices. People who have had their brain altered in a significant way (e.g. a stroke) can be very different people afterwards. I do not agree with Neodoxy that just because we must necessarily choose what we consider to be the best of our options, that we do not have free will. In my opinion, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
However, the counterargument to the chemicals are what determines our decisions is that the chemicals are what we are. The chemicals don’t make us choose to do something, we do. The chemicals are us.
Regardless of whether or not you consider it “free will” or not, we all make decisions, and we all interact with one another. Whether or not we have “free will” doesn’t change anything practically, but it certainly can be interesting to talk about.
It’s a non sequitur. It is irrelevant whether or not someone has free will in the matter of punishment. We all make choices. If someone chooses to be a criminal, the rest of us choose to punish him. Besides, if there is no free will, we have no choice in whether or not we punish a criminal.