Zeroing in on free will

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something must cause an action. Either 1) the soul of A had a different quality than the soul of A', or 2) the souls act at random.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...assuming that A and A' are athiests and don't believe that they were givin the devine gift of a soul by god...I'm curious about what your other possible reasons might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your job. It says so in original post [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[4ever]

[ QUOTE ]
Something must cause an action. Either 1) the soul of A had a different quality than the soul of A', or 2) the souls act at random. [ QUOTE ]
So...assuming that A and A' are athiests and don't believe that they were givin the devine gift of a soul by god...I'm curious about what your other possible reasons might be. [ QUOTE ]
That's your job. It says so in original post


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. In that case, I have to say that I can't seem to think about this problem too much on a serious level. If I'm supposed to assume that every single action up to this point was somehow cosmically identical, why wouldn't the same be the case with this action (which I guess is the problem.)

Just can't seem to make much sense of it.

I will moniter though, I'm interested in the replies. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

The problem is that I am trying to observe an act of free will, the independent variable, in a perfectly controlled setting. That is, observe two actions where the difference can only be attributed to free will, and not something deterministic.

This of course is impossible, and this scenario, thus far, is the best I can come up with. I guess you can assume the very improbable chance that everyone, up until that point, made identical choices in both universes, and only here was a difference started.

All I'm looking to do is ask "what causes some people to choose X and others to choose Y, if not deterministic causes? And if both act in a manner that cannot be determined, how is this different from acting randomly?"

A man walks up to a wise man and says, "do humans have free choice?" The wise man thinks for a second and then kicks the other man hard in the knee. The man says, "Ouch. why did you do that." The wise man says nothing. He kicks him again. "What's your problem? Stop that!" Again, the wise man says nothing. Again, the wise man kicks the other, and again and again until he is irate. "That's it, I'm calling the cops! You should be punished for this!" he exclaims.

Should the wise man be held accountable for his actions? If so, he has free choice. If not, there is no basis for punishing him.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
A man walks up to a wise man and says, "do humans have free choice?" The wise man thinks for a second and then kicks the other man hard in the knee. The man says, "Ouch. why did you do that." The wise man says nothing. He kicks him again. "What's your problem? Stop that!" Again, the wise man says nothing. Again, the wise man kicks the other, and again and again until he is irate. "That's it, I'm calling the cops! You should be punished for this!" he exclaims.

Should the wise man be held accountable for his actions? If so, he has free choice. If not, there is no basis for punishing him.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, if the querent didn't learn anything from this endeavor, then the wise man is hardly "wise."

Secondly, there are reasons to take action against the old man that fit with a deterministic paradigm. The old man is insane, and needs some help for his own good. The old man is also a likely danger to others, and needs to be "corrected," however that is to take place.

As for your concept of punishment, there is no reason to bring further suffering to the old man unless it does a requisite amount of good for him, and more importantly, others.

I don't see determinism as nihilistic or in any way an excuse to get out of personal responsibility. Quite the contrary. A sensible person who realises the relationship between cause and effect should realize also an increased sense of power and control, and accordingly strive for what is in his best interests.

Me: "Should the wise man be held accountable for his actions? If so, he has free choice. If not, there is no basis for punishing him."

hmk: "First of all, if the querent didn't learn anything from this endeavor, then the wise man is hardly "wise."

Secondly, there are reasons to take action against the old man that fit with a deterministic paradigm. The old man is insane, and needs some help for his own good. The old man is also a likely danger to others, and needs to be "corrected," however that is to take place.

As for your concept of punishment, there is no reason to bring further suffering to the old man unless it does a requisite amount of good for him, and more importantly, others.

I don't see determinism as nihilistic or in any way an excuse to get out of personal responsibility. Quite the contrary. A sensible person who realises the relationship between cause and effect should realize also an increased sense of power and control, and accordingly strive for what is in his best interests."

I only meant for my question to be hypothetical. The wise man should not really be punished, because it was only a demonstration. The guy who asked the question is supposed to reason this in his head:

"He is harming me. I am angry. Should he be punished for what he is doing? Yes. Why would I even ask this question if people don't have free choice? Would I punish a snake for biting me? No. Why then does a human deserve punishment? Because he has free choice."

The use of punsishment here is only to illustrate an example. Punishment comes later in reasoning as a solution to the problem.

Okay, so is it still possible that we don't have free choice? That we don't determine our actions, but some hidden force does? I said before that I think we are partly influenced by the subconscious chain of experiences and sense perceptions. But that only influences our decisions; it doesn't make them for us.

Think about everyday experiences. Do you think something else is making decisions for you? If you do, then you would have zero responsibility for your actions (and that doesn't have to be in the moral sense.)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
"He is harming me. I am angry. Should he be punished for what he is doing? Yes. Why would I even ask this question if people don't have free choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does someone have to have free will for the querent to want to punish the old man? Innumberable psychological studies on humans and animals have shown that punishment can shape behavior, often in a predictable way. In this instance, punishment would be a useful tool to shape an undesirable behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Would I punish a snake for biting me? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't? I'd kill it.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about everyday experiences. Do you think something else is making decisions for you? If you do, then you would have zero responsibility for your actions (and that doesn't have to be in the moral sense.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But I (that is, the collection of organs, thoughts, emotions, resources and social connections that constitute "me") is all part of this web of decisions. I have learned that responsibility is frequently advantageous to me. There is nothing gained by slumping back and saying "ho hum, nothing I do is my fault" when I could be out having fun, helping people or being a productive member of society.

"Why does someone have to have free will for the querent to want to punish the old man? Innumberable psychological studies on humans and animals have shown that punishment can shape behavior, often in a predictable way. In this instance, punishment would be a useful tool to shape an undesirable behavior."

This is why I regretted framing the question as I did. I realize this fact about punishment - what I'm getting at is the reason punishment is justified. Can you justify punishing something that doesn't know what it's doing is wrong?

"You wouldn't? I'd kill it."

In the heat of the moment I would probably kill it. But afterwards I would realize the futility and stupidity of my action.

"But I (that is, the collection of organs, thoughts, emotions, resources and social connections that constitute "me") is all part of this web of decisions. I have learned that responsibility is frequently advantageous to me. There is nothing gained by slumping back and saying "ho hum, nothing I do is my fault" when I could be out having fun, helping people or being a productive member of society."

So we're in agreement. All these subconscious forces influence us, but in the end we make our own decisions. Just because you learned something doesn't mean that what you learned made the decision for you. It just helped you make the right one. You just as easily could have done something different, like, as you say, slumping back and doing nothing. What was stopping you?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In the heat of the moment I would probably kill it. But afterwards I would realize the futility and stupidity of my action.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL healthy vertebrate animals are capable of learning. Otherwise B.F. Skinner wouldn't be known today. Teaching the snake, however, is probably not worth the effort.

[ QUOTE ]
So we're in agreement. All these subconscious forces influence us, but in the end we make our own decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this distinction between the subject and his environment? Both are constantly interacting. In an ocean of particles interacting with each other, the distinction between "me" and "not me" is as useless and arbitrary as the distinction between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

[ QUOTE ]
You just as easily could have done something different, like, as you say, slumping back and doing nothing. What was stopping you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not have just as easily done that. The combination of a sound body and mind, a desire for security and success rooted in emotions forged from past events, a disdain for failure and losers (from similar causes) and the means to do so compel actions toward a good, prosperous life. My desires all seem to have a reason, althought I can't calculate them perfectly.

"I could not have just as easily done that. The combination of a sound body and mind, a desire for security and success rooted in emotions forged from past events, a disdain for failure and losers (from similar causes) and the means to do so compel actions toward a good, prosperous life. My desires all seem to have a reason, althought I can't calculate them perfectly."

These desires only compel our decision when we are not using rationality. If we think about it, we may choose the option that is more desirable, because we intuitively realize it is more desirable. Or, we may choose the less desirable one, because we reason that we want to try something new, or whatever. Reason has control over the desires. Or, the final option, we try to pick the more desirable thing but we don't know what it is. We don't always do the desirable thing. Often we screw up even if we think rationally about our options, because we can't calculate our subconscious perfectly.


If we are not thinking rationally we are just compelled by this chain of subconscious drives. Many people do this at the poker table; we call them fish.

In both cases our decisions are affected, but only in the second are our decisions unfree.