Originally posted by spruce112358"Life in the Confidence Interval" an award-winning novel written by spruce112358
"God" gave "Man" free will, so Man could surprise Him by doing whatever we want, or so the story goes.
But scientists wonder if that is really possible? From someone's genetics and upbringing, if we knew everything that shaped him or her over the years, and we knew everything about his current situation and experience -- could we predict with 100% ac ...[text shortened]... doubt, lies the Free Will of Mankind. Our fundamental right to surprise ourselves.
Originally posted by mtthwI hadn't heard that one. He says in one sentence what it takes me paragraphs to get across. I guess that whole genius thing comes in handy. Must be nice.
Myself, I think I'll go along with Steven Hawking. "Free will is a good approximation of how the brain works".
I tend to agree with the idea that true free will, as I generally understand it, could only come from a source beyond the physical. So yes, I agree that non-belief in God usually means belief in only the physical world and thus belief that true free will is an illusion. So it's not so much that determinism is incompatible with true free will as this dis-belief in the non-physical. I have to say I never looked at it quite that way before.
Mttw, you are technically correct that a lack of belief in God does not imply you can't believe in free will. One could still believe in higher planes of existence etc, without attributing things to a Creator. Personally, and I think many AA's feel the same way, my lack of belief extends pretty much to all non-physical phenomena. Although, as an Agnostic I'm really more in a "show me" mode than deeply believing such things cannot be. To date I simply remain fairly convinced that they don't.
Originally posted by IchibanovCan you say this again? I lost you here...
I hadn't heard that one. He says in one sentence what it takes me paragraphs to get across. I guess that whole genius thing comes in handy. Must be nice.
I tend to agree with the idea that true free will, as I generally understand it, could only come from a source beyond the physical. So yes, I agree that non-belief in God usually means belief in only t ...[text shortened]... lieving such things cannot be. To date I simply remain fairly convinced that they don't.
So it's not so much that determinism is incompatible with true free will as this dis-belief in the non-physical.
Should I have the last slice of pizza? Do I have free will to decide if I will or won't? How hungry am I? Who else wants it? Would I enjoy it more tomorrow morning for breakfast? What else is there to eat? Is there a bet on that I won't take it?
Am I forced by the product of all these inputs into a particular action that I truly have no control over?
Or can I, simply, exert my free will and do whatever seems best?
The funny thing about NOT admitting free will is that, if we don't actually have it, then one would be morally obliged to get rid of judgement and justice. All judgements of human actions would be moot -- we all do what we are compelled to do, and it would be morally unjust to punish anyone for doing what they were forced to do. In fact, without free will, morality completely disappears.
The only question then becomes, how can others be conditioned into doing what we (who are We?) want them to do. Since no one can make a choice, no single individual differs from any other. "Good people" are simply those who condition easily.
Humanity reduces to a jar of paramecium, swimming blinding towards the light for reasons they themselves cannot fathom.
Originally posted by mtthwOkay, slight restatement...
Believing in God may well imply believing in free will, but I don't see that the converse is true at all. Unless you're using a particularly wide definition of God. Just to take one part of the argument - how does belief in free-will require belief in a single creator?
Myself, I think I'll go along with Steven Hawking. "Free will is a good approximation of how the brain works".
If you believe in free-will, you almost have to believe in some sort of godlike "magic" outside the normal scope of physics. Note the word almost. I personally cannot see any possibility, but this is so far on the edge of what seems scientifically knowable that I think all of us should hedge a bit.
I'm not sure the context of Hawking's statement. We certainly all feel like we have free-will, although it is hard to see free-will constructed from rules of physics and some people hence conclude that free-will is an illusion. But if Hawking is saying free will is an approximation, then what is he saying? Is that free-will or not? If by approximation he means it just feels like it, then that is not free-will at all.
Originally posted by spruce112358Yikes! This paragraph needs a major overhaul.
The funny thing about NOT admitting free will is that, if we don't actually have it, then one would be morally obliged to get rid of judgement and justice. All judgements of human actions would be moot -- we all do what we are compelled to do, and it would be morally unjust to punish anyone for doing what they were forced to do. In fact, without free will, morality completely disappears.
1) If morality 'completely disappears', you cannot say that any punishment is morally unjust. You're standing on a leg you just cut off.
2) We do not hold insane people morally culpable for their crimes, yet we still lock them up, if only to stop them from committing further crimes. We don't hold a rabid dog responsible for biting someone, yet we euthanize them once they do. Justice isn't only about punishment, but also about prevention of further harmful acts.