Free Will

[PKFFW]

Sure, we invented those particular words. But the concepts still exist and are true, and if there was a living thing to observe or think about them and come up with their own words for it, it'd be just as true for them as us, and if no living thing existed, it'd still be true, even without the verbage existing.

That's exactly the point.

We invented mathematics but the underlying concepts, the forces of nature that underpin the universe, are still there and do not depend on mathematics at all.

From dictionary.com

math·e·mat·ics  (mth-mtks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
mathematics (ˌmæθəˈmætɪks; ˌmæθˈmæt-)
n
1. (Mathematics) (functioning as singular) a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation
2. (Mathematics) (functioning as singular or plural) mathematical operations and processes involved in the solution of a problem or study of some scientific field
math•e•mat•ics (ˌmæθ əˈmæt ɪks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. v.) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. v.) mathematical procedures, operations, or properties.
mathematics  (mth-mtks)
The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and calculus are branches of mathematics.

Note every definition states the "study of" or "treatment of" or "science of" or "expressed".

Mathematics is the human invention used to define the underpinnings of the universe, not the underpinnings themselves.  Essentially it is a language, a way of expressing something.

[PKFFW]

I would say mathematics is one of the purest sciences we have - it's entirely fundamental to proving ideas in the rest of the sciences.  I'm reminded of xkcd:

Gold!

And I'd agree mathematics one of the purest sciences we have.  It's not however, one of the fundamental forces of the universe like gravity or electromagnetism etc.

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

[Grid]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Hmm.  I personally don't think the idea of a deterministic world should be the root of any social arguments.  The idea of free will is extremely useful for judicial matters, for extracting meaning from life, and for plenty of other things, but that doesn't mean free will itself must exist for it to be useful.

There's a small parallel here with religious moral teaching.  The idea of a god that will judge you in an afterlife is particularly useful  if it means that everyone benefits from the behavior of theists, but that doesn't mean that this god or an afterlife exists.  I originally wanted to see where people here stood on free will because of some comments made on the "Religion?" thread.

So, I try to act like a good person, even though I don't have free will, and I try to be an upstanding individual, even though I won't be rewarded for it later.  Personally, I feel a twinge of helplessness when I start thinking about determinism, so I do my best to just forget that I'm determined to do whatever I'll do and maintain my very much needed locus of control that way.

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Hmm.  I personally don't think the idea of a deterministic world should be the root of any social arguments.  The idea of free will is extremely useful for judicial matters, for extracting meaning from life, and for plenty of other things, but that doesn't mean free will itself must exist for it to be useful.

There's a small parallel here with religious moral teaching.  The idea of a god that will judge you in an afterlife is particularly useful  if it means that everyone benefits from the behavior of theists, but that doesn't mean that this god or an afterlife exists.  I originally wanted to see where people here stood on free will because of some comments made on the "Religion?" thread.

So, I try to act like a good person, even though I don't have free will, and I try to be an upstanding individual, even though I won't be rewarded for it later.  Personally, I feel a twinge of helplessness when I start thinking about determinism, so I do my best to just forget that I'm determined to do whatever I'll do and maintain my very much needed locus of control that way.

How do you "try to act like a good person" if you don't have free will? How can you even have any effect on your actions?

[arebelspy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

[Grid]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Hmm.  I personally don't think the idea of a deterministic world should be the root of any social arguments.  The idea of free will is extremely useful for judicial matters, for extracting meaning from life, and for plenty of other things, but that doesn't mean free will itself must exist for it to be useful.

There's a small parallel here with religious moral teaching.  The idea of a god that will judge you in an afterlife is particularly useful  if it means that everyone benefits from the behavior of theists, but that doesn't mean that this god or an afterlife exists.  I originally wanted to see where people here stood on free will because of some comments made on the "Religion?" thread.

So, I try to act like a good person, even though I don't have free will, and I try to be an upstanding individual, even though I won't be rewarded for it later.  Personally, I feel a twinge of helplessness when I start thinking about determinism, so I do my best to just forget that I'm determined to do whatever I'll do and maintain my very much needed locus of control that way.

How do you "try to act like a good person" if you don't have free will? How can you even have any effect on your actions?

I pretty much don't do anything of the sort (trying to do anything.  It's hopeless, right?).  But by not thinking about it all the time and defaulting to a preprogrammed biological wiring of having a self, I think I do just fine trying to act like a good person.  Lol.

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Hmm.  I personally don't think the idea of a deterministic world should be the root of any social arguments.  The idea of free will is extremely useful for judicial matters, for extracting meaning from life, and for plenty of other things, but that doesn't mean free will itself must exist for it to be useful.

There's a small parallel here with religious moral teaching.  The idea of a god that will judge you in an afterlife is particularly useful  if it means that everyone benefits from the behavior of theists, but that doesn't mean that this god or an afterlife exists.  I originally wanted to see where people here stood on free will because of some comments made on the "Religion?" thread.

So, I try to act like a good person, even though I don't have free will, and I try to be an upstanding individual, even though I won't be rewarded for it later.  Personally, I feel a twinge of helplessness when I start thinking about determinism, so I do my best to just forget that I'm determined to do whatever I'll do and maintain my very much needed locus of control that way.

How do you "try to act like a good person" if you don't have free will? How can you even have any effect on your actions?

I pretty much don't do anything of the sort (trying to do anything.  It's hopeless, right?).  But by not thinking about it all the time and defaulting to a preprogrammed biological wiring of having a self, I think I do just fine trying to act like a good person.  Lol.

So I guess you were just "preprogrammed" to be a good person.

Good thing you received that program instead of the "evil" person program. Those programs are nasty. ;-)

[MikeBear]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Morality.

[arebelspy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

[arebelspy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Morality.

Bingo.

[arebelspy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

Hmm.  I personally don't think the idea of a deterministic world should be the root of any social arguments.  The idea of free will is extremely useful for judicial matters, for extracting meaning from life, and for plenty of other things, but that doesn't mean free will itself must exist for it to be useful.

There's a small parallel here with religious moral teaching.  The idea of a god that will judge you in an afterlife is particularly useful  if it means that everyone benefits from the behavior of theists, but that doesn't mean that this god or an afterlife exists.  I originally wanted to see where people here stood on free will because of some comments made on the "Religion?" thread.

So, I try to act like a good person, even though I don't have free will, and I try to be an upstanding individual, even though I won't be rewarded for it later.  Personally, I feel a twinge of helplessness when I start thinking about determinism, so I do my best to just forget that I'm determined to do whatever I'll do and maintain my very much needed locus of control that way.

How do you "try to act like a good person" if you don't have free will? How can you even have any effect on your actions?

You don't. But you think you do. So when you think you're choosing, "choose" the moral choice.  ;)

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

[MikeBear]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

You are just running in circles now...

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

You are just running in circles now...

No, you are.

[arebelspy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

You are just running in circles now...

No, you are.

I know you are but what am I?

/eyeroll

Let's try to be civil, cool? 


Question for you: Do animals have choices and free will?  If so, isn't owning a pet immoral?

If not, what makes their actions determined with no choice?

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

You are just running in circles now...

No, you are.

I know you are but what am I?

/eyeroll

Let's try to be civil, cool? 


Question for you: Do animals have choices and free will?  If so, isn't owning a pet immoral?

If not, what makes their actions determined with no choice?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on what is wrong with slavery.

I've asked you other questions that you haven't answered, but that's OK.

[arebelspy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

You are just running in circles now...

No, you are.

I know you are but what am I?

/eyeroll

Let's try to be civil, cool? 


Question for you: Do animals have choices and free will?  If so, isn't owning a pet immoral?

If not, what makes their actions determined with no choice?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on what is wrong with slavery.

I've asked you other questions that you haven't answered, but that's OK.

Sigh.

I did answer it. 

If you want a specific example, here's one: do unto others golden rule. I don't want to be a slave, therefore I shouldn't enslave others.

Pretty much any other moral argument against slavery works as well, as long as it's not based around free will, which most moralities aren't.

Now I have questions about your morality around free will argument and would love to hear a response. Or is being civil totally out the window for obstinance? 

The above questions will do for a start.

If your morality is based around free will, I'm assuming polluting is fine, as nature doesn't have free will?

Do animals have free will? If so, pets are immoral slavery. If not, torturing them should be fine.

I think the problems with basing morality around free will is clear.  So you'll probably need a different argument against slavery, meaning it should work just fine with determinism.

Is that all clearer now?

[Grid]

How much "choice" have we all really had in life, though?  You know it might have been nice to have a prehensile tail.  Do I have one? Nope.  I would rather have had 12 fingers and 12 toes for better all-around traction, and maybe an extra stomach to extract more calories from the food I ingest.  Perhaps some adjustments to my intellect for good measure.  Or maybe if I was born in another part of the world, life would have been that much better.

We all have very little say in how our lives go, and we do our best to control as much as we can, to make it as much to our liking as possible, and the nice thing is we don't need much to be happy.  Look at this forum specifically.  We work our asses off to actually have a choice with what we do with our time, much earlier than others, because it bothers us that much more to not have control over our time.  For those who've made it to FI, they did it of their own volition and hard work, but that doesn't mean they weren't predetermined to choose to do so.

ETA:  With a little bit of imagination, it seems that we don't have much choice in the grand majority of things about our lives, and it's only after taking a more analytical approach to the situation that we realize we really don't have choice at all.

[frugalnacho]

I don't really understand what slavery has to do with anything.  Or why certain behaviors (like enslaving someone) can't be thought of as bad regardless of whether it was done under free will or was predetermined. 

[Grid]

I would say mathematics is one of the purest sciences we have - it's entirely fundamental to proving ideas in the rest of the sciences.  I'm reminded of xkcd:

Gold!

And I'd agree mathematics one of the purest sciences we have.  It's not however, one of the fundamental forces of the universe like gravity or electromagnetism etc.

Point taken PKFFW.  Some mathematical concepts themselves no doubt have "minds of their own" or inherent structure to them.  Fractals, prime numbers,  the Fibonacci sequence, different types of series, functions like sine and cosine - they're all just there, immutable stuff that's out there that only takes form when you start working with them using symbols.  I guess these things aren't really "mathematics" at all though, just something often associated with math.

[PKFFW]

Point taken PKFFW.  Some mathematical concepts themselves no doubt have "minds of their own" or inherent structure to them.  Fractals, prime numbers,  the Fibonacci sequence, different types of series, functions like sine and cosine - they're all just there, immutable stuff that's out there that only takes form when you start working with them using symbols.  I guess these things aren't really "mathematics" at all though, just something often associated with math.

*Bold mine for emphasis.

BINGO!

[arebelspy]

I don't really understand what slavery has to do with anything.  Or why certain behaviors (like enslaving someone) can't be thought of as bad regardless of whether it was done under free will or was predetermined.

Agreed.

[arebelspy]

Prime numbers exist even if there is no words for them or living things to come up with those words.

Some things are dependent on the physical world (pi, for example) that could change given a different universe.

But 1+1 will equal two, and a number greater than 1 with the only factors of 1 and itself is a prime number.  Even if no one ever says what a factor is.

I don't know enough about fractals to say one way or the other, but I think they're closer to pi than to primes in terms of being immutable.

[Daisy]

I don't really understand what slavery has to do with anything.  Or why certain behaviors (like enslaving someone) can't be thought of as bad regardless of whether it was done under free will or was predetermined.

The question is, why is slavery in itself bad? I get that we all know it's bad. I'm not asking if you have the right to enslave anyone. I'm asking...what is it about slavery itself that's bad?

Because in my mind, slavery is the ultimate form of lack of free will. If we don't have free will, can we really ever be "enslaved" by another person?

And all of this talk of morality and ethics is totally mindboggling when you all have been arguing about math all along. All of the determinism arguments above say "it had to happen that way due to math". So no amount of morality or ethics should come into play into how things workout or how we think about them, in your world view.

[Daisy]

For determinists:

What's the argument against slavery?

The same as any moral argument against it.

It depends on what your ethical framework is.

So I guess you DON'T have an argument against slavery.

I have my personal one, based on my ethical beliefs.

But choose whichever you like: Kantian, Utilitarian, my deity says it's bad, whatever.

Determinism has nothing to do with slavery, so whatever argument you have against slavery is perfectly valid under determinism, unless your morality is based around free will.   Almost none are.

I see slavery as the absence of free will. Otherwise, what is wrong with slavery?

What does morality have to do with anything? Is there a mathematical model for morality?

You are just running in circles now...

No, you are.

I know you are but what am I?

/eyeroll

Let's try to be civil, cool? 


Question for you: Do animals have choices and free will?  If so, isn't owning a pet immoral?

If not, what makes their actions determined with no choice?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on what is wrong with slavery.

I've asked you other questions that you haven't answered, but that's OK.

Sigh.

I did answer it. 

If you want a specific example, here's one: do unto others golden rule. I don't want to be a slave, therefore I shouldn't enslave others.

Pretty much any other moral argument against slavery works as well, as long as it's not based around free will, which most moralities aren't.

Now I have questions about your morality around free will argument and would love to hear a response. Or is being civil totally out the window for obstinance? 

The above questions will do for a start.

If your morality is based around free will, I'm assuming polluting is fine, as nature doesn't have free will?

Do animals have free will? If so, pets are immoral slavery. If not, torturing them should be fine.

I think the problems with basing morality around free will is clear.  So you'll probably need a different argument against slavery, meaning it should work just fine with determinism.

Is that all clearer now?

I believe I have been civil. I haven't called anyone's ideas absurd or anything...

You guys are the ones bringing morality into this conversation. I've purposefully left it out because that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't think has to do with free will vs. determinism.

Sure, I have the free will to pollute. I think it's wrong to do though. But I can tell you this, I can totally determine what will happen if I dump a tank of oil in the ocean. That part IS deterministic. But my actual making the decision to pollute is free will and I was not pre-determined to do it. Unless I was enslaved at the time, and my master made me pollute outside of my free will.

[arebelspy]

You guys are the ones bringing morality into this conversation. I've purposefully left it out because that opens up a whole other can of worms that I don't think has to do with free will vs. determinism.

Huh?  You asked why slavery is wrong. That's a moral question.

We've answered now why slavery is wrong, regardless of determinism or free will.   You think it's because it's restricting someone's free will. I don't think that's why it's wrong, and I think any number of other ethical frameworks can give reasons for why it's wrong without relying on free will.

Further, if a restriction on free will is immoral, doesn't that make all laws/governments immoral?  A parent telling a child what to do seems immoral.  Basing your morality on free will has many problems.

In any case, have we sufficiently answered your slavery question?  If not, what part isn't making sense?

I'm answering your questions, the polite thing to do would be to reciprocate.

Do animals have free will?  (Anyone who believes in free will feel free to answer since it seems like Daisy might not.)

[arebelspy]

Sure, I have the free will to pollute. I think it's wrong to do though.

Why?  Slavery is wrong according to you because it impinges on someone's free will. Polluting doesn't.

So what reason makes polluting "wrong" and why can't that reason also apply to slavery absent the free will issue?

I just don't see why you brought up slavery to begin with, it seems totally irrelevant.

[arebelspy]

Sure, I have the free will to pollute. I think it's wrong to do though.

Why?  Slavery is wrong according to you because it impinges on someone's free will. Polluting doesn't.

So what reason makes polluting "wrong" and why can't that reason also apply to slavery absent the free will issue?

I just don't see why you brought up slavery to begin with, it seems totally irrelevant.

I don't think of freewill and freedom as the same thing. I have the freewill to try to fly like superman but if some force that is mightier than me (gravity) holds me back then I don't have the freedom to fly but still have the free will to try.
Anyways, I used my freewill to vote yes for free will :-)!

Exactly. There's certainly a difference. I'm all for freedom.

[PKFFW]

Prime numbers exist even if there is no words for them or living things to come up with those words.

Some things are dependent on the physical world (pi, for example) that could change given a different universe.

But 1+1 will equal two, and a number greater than 1 with the only factors of 1 and itself is a prime number.  Even if no one ever says what a factor is.

I don't know enough about fractals to say one way or the other, but I think they're closer to pi than to primes in terms of being immutable.

But again, mathematics is the language, the process, used by humans to define prime numbers in symbols.  It is not the prime numbers themselves.  The prime numbers simply are.

[frugalnacho]

Sure, I have the free will to pollute. I think it's wrong to do though.

Why?  Slavery is wrong according to you because it impinges on someone's free will. Polluting doesn't.

So what reason makes polluting "wrong" and why can't that reason also apply to slavery absent the free will issue?

I just don't see why you brought up slavery to begin with, it seems totally irrelevant.

Pretty much this.

I think we all know that slavery is wrong.  Whether the master is evil and uses his free will to enslave someone, or whether he had no free will choice and was predetermined to enslave someone it's still wrong for the same reasons.

[arebelspy]

Prime numbers exist even if there is no words for them or living things to come up with those words.

Some things are dependent on the physical world (pi, for example) that could change given a different universe.

But 1+1 will equal two, and a number greater than 1 with the only factors of 1 and itself is a prime number.  Even if no one ever says what a factor is.

I don't know enough about fractals to say one way or the other, but I think they're closer to pi than to primes in terms of being immutable.

But again, mathematics is the language, the process, used by humans to define prime numbers in symbols.  It is not the prime numbers themselves.  The prime numbers simply are.

Sure, I agree.  It's a semantics thing, but I think we're both in agreement on the underlying concept still existing (per your last sentence).  Either way, those things that simply are, are fundamental.  If you don't want to call it math, that's fine.  It still leaves the point the same, they still exist. 

[skunkfunk]

I would say mathematics is one of the purest sciences we have - it's entirely fundamental to proving ideas in the rest of the sciences.  I'm reminded of xkcd:

Gold!

And I'd agree mathematics one of the purest sciences we have.  It's not however, one of the fundamental forces of the universe like gravity or electromagnetism etc.

Point taken PKFFW.  Some mathematical concepts themselves no doubt have "minds of their own" or inherent structure to them.  Fractals, prime numbers,  the Fibonacci sequence, different types of series, functions like sine and cosine - they're all just there, immutable stuff that's out there that only takes form when you start working with them using symbols.  I guess these things aren't really "mathematics" at all though, just something often associated with math.

Hey, even without us around there'd still be math being done. Light, for instance, is pretty damn good at vector math.

[skunkfunk]

telling a child what to do seems immoral

Some parents actually work that way. "You don't have to do anything somebody tells you to do!" For instance, some of my wife's student's parents get upset when a teacher tells a kid they have to do something like homework or sitting down whether they want to or not.

And we wonder why these kids get defiance disorders.

[arebelspy]

telling a child what to do seems immoral

Some parents actually work that way. "You don't have to do anything somebody tells you to do!" For instance, some of my wife's student's parents get upset when a teacher tells a kid they have to do something like homework or sitting down whether they want to or not.

And we wonder why these kids get defiance disorders.

Including them never telling their own children what to do?

That seems nearly impossible to actually implement.

But I have heard of people who only give their children choices.  They must have a lot of free time and money to be able to adjust their schedule constantly around the kid (e.g. kid doesn't want to go to the supermarket, you don't force them to go, but can't leave them home alone, so you either don't go or you get a sitter).

I find it rare that actually is implemented truthfully.

[skunkfunk]

telling a child what to do seems immoral

Some parents actually work that way. "You don't have to do anything somebody tells you to do!" For instance, some of my wife's student's parents get upset when a teacher tells a kid they have to do something like homework or sitting down whether they want to or not.

And we wonder why these kids get defiance disorders.

Including them never telling their own children what to do?

That seems nearly impossible to actually implement.

But I have heard of people who only give their children choices.  They must have a lot of free time and money to be able to adjust their schedule constantly around the kid (e.g. kid doesn't want to go to the supermarket, you don't force them to go, but can't leave them home alone, so you either don't go or you get a sitter).

I find it rare that actually is implemented truthfully.

She had one kid say that he didn't have to do anything his mother didn't make him do. Another, the parent actually asked the teacher to tell the kid he had to do stuff like brush his teeth at home because the parent couldn't get him to do anything either.

Just for example. She does have 900 students, being the only music teacher in an elementary school, and in a population that large some of them are not raised well.

[arebelspy]

telling a child what to do seems immoral

Some parents actually work that way. "You don't have to do anything somebody tells you to do!" For instance, some of my wife's student's parents get upset when a teacher tells a kid they have to do something like homework or sitting down whether they want to or not.

And we wonder why these kids get defiance disorders.

Including them never telling their own children what to do?

That seems nearly impossible to actually implement.

But I have heard of people who only give their children choices.  They must have a lot of free time and money to be able to adjust their schedule constantly around the kid (e.g. kid doesn't want to go to the supermarket, you don't force them to go, but can't leave them home alone, so you either don't go or you get a sitter).

I find it rare that actually is implemented truthfully.

She had one kid say that he didn't have to do anything his mother didn't make him do. Another, the parent actually asked the teacher to tell the kid he had to do stuff like brush his teeth at home because the parent couldn't get him to do anything either.

Just for example. She does have 900 students, being the only music teacher in an elementary school, and in a population that large some of them are not raised well.

Yeah, that doesn't fit within the moral framework we're discussing (i.e. it's wrong to impinge on free will).  It's just bad parenting.

:)

[HappyRock]

I believe we should all act as if we had free will, but in its true sense I don't think it exists. For example, most psychopathic killers can't simply "choose" to do what we consider moral and ethical.

In other words, it exists to a certain extent in that we can freely choose based on our genes, influences in life, what we learned, etc. But in reality we were all fated to the lives we are in, the opportunities we have had, etc.

I thought true free will was disproved by neuroscience, but I guess not. To me, determinism definitely exists more than absolute "free will". I guess it depends on the definitions we are using.

Another example : Atheists and Agnostics can't simply "choose" to follow Christianity or Islam, how their brain works and what they were taught/influenced by prevents them from being true followers.

Google definition : the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.

Free will has been described as the ability to make choices unimpeded by prevailing factors such as neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions.

I think I am misunderstanding the definition or something given how many people voted "yes".

[HappyRock]

And yes, I think a series of coin flips couldn't have happened any other way.

Would you be unsurprised to see a streak of tails go on for millions of flips, then?

Of course that would be surprising (given a fair coin).  It's extremely unlikely.

But unlikely events happen all the time.

Why would things having to happen the way they do mean you aren't surprised when they happen that way?

I feel like I argue with you more than anybody else in this forum. Ha!

Are you that guy who used to be named MarkFergison or whatever?!

Nope. Am I missing a joke here, I feel like I'm missing a joke.

It's possible that you merely argue more with everybody than anyone else!

LOL. This was hilarious... yes Skunk, he does like to contradict more than anybody else. Sometimes I wonder if ARS is trying to contradict/argue with people rather than directly and sincerely express his POV on things.

"Are you that guy who used to be named MarkFergison or whatever?!" lold. No he isn't, that would be me, and the old account was named after the MMM and IFM blog. Remember when you bashed the IFM blog and the author came and posted to explain your incorrect assumptions? I would almost suggest you get your memory checked considering how many times you posted/replied to me on my thread and then apparently forgot like 3 times now. No offense.

[arebelspy]

"Are you that guy who used to be named MarkFergison or whatever?!" lold. No he isn't, that would be me, and the old account was named after the MMM and IFM blog. Remember when you bashed the IFM blog and the author came and posted to explain your incorrect assumptions? I would almost suggest you get your memory checked considering how many times you posted/replied to me on my thread and then apparently forgot like 3 times now. No offense.

Yeah, I never remember your screen name.  HappyRock and SkunkFunk seem pretty similar to me - two random words strung together, similar cadence and syllables, etc.  You can't see how I might get them mixed up?

Also my memory does work different than most peoples.  Aside from that, I don't store information I don't find important.

[arebelspy]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

[Raay]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, no, most animals don't have free will (or if they have it, they hide it really well). They lack the human ability for abstract long-range planning by simulating how different scenarios will play out in their head, recording their plans or changing them later. They lack the ability to elaborate why they have made a particular decision and under which circumstances they would have decided otherwise. In short they lack ability for deliberate action. Deliberating, ability to intent, acting with premeditation = having free will. Predictably and immediately reacting to external stimuli with little apparent internal processing, repeating a set of instinctive or trained behaviors = not having free will.

So once again I come back to the idea of culpability which you stubbornly discard as irrelevant. We fine and incarcerate owners instead of pets precisely on the grounds that the latter are recognized to have no free will, unable to act with premeditation. Likewise, a severely mentally disabled person may be said to be acting not of their own accord, hence no free will, no ability to commit crimes.

[dragoncar]

I just remembered that scifi lovers here should read the foundation series by Asimov.  Only tangentially related

[Datastache]

Deliberating, ability to intent, acting with premeditation = having free will. Predictably and immediately reacting to external stimuli with little apparent internal processing, repeating a set of instinctive or trained behaviors = not having free will.

By that definition, I don't think anyone (except perhaps a hardcore solipsist) would disagree that all healthy human beings have free will. Not much of a debate there, frankly.

What I find far more interesting - and far more improbable - is the idea that people are capable of behaving in a way that is neither deterministic nor random. In other words, it's the idea that in a given situation, a given person is physically capable of making multiple different choices, and the way they make their choice in a nonrandom fashion that nevertheless doesn't follow any natural (or even supernatural) laws. That would be true free will, and the only "evidence" that such a thing exists is our own subjective experience.

As a thought experiment, consider this. Let's say we could rewind to when I first started thinking about writing this reply. Let's imagine that we could "reset" every bit of matter and energy in the universe to the exact same state it was in at that instant. Now we let events play out a second time. Could I have chosen to do anything other than write the words you now see in this post? Keep in mind that every molecule, atom, and subatomic particle has been returned to the exact same position, velocity, energy state, and so forth (I know, Heisenberg, etc., etc.)...and that includes the particles that constitute my brain, as well as every memory it contains and every personality trait it encompasses. How can my brain choose to do anything other than...what it chose to do? The only answers I can think of rely on tiny quantum randomnesses somehow cascading into the entire brain making a different choice. But that wouldn't be free will - that would just be me randomly choosing something different.

It seems to me that aside from weird quantum randomness, a brain is a physical system that can only react to stimuli according to the laws of physics. It may carefully deliberate over different future possibilities, calculating and considering and pondering and planning, but that entire process is dictated by the basic laws of physics acting on an extremely complex neural system. There's no more freedom in the final answer than a calculator has when working out the answer to a very difficult math problem.

And yes, if this is all true, it does have a frightening tendency to make ideas like culpability and justice and so forth seem pretty silly. That's why most of us who disbelieve in free will tend to choose - hehe - to continue living as if we do have it. A world in which everyone believed they had no free will would likely get pretty nasty.

[Raay]

Deliberating, ability to intent, acting with premeditation = having free will. Predictably and immediately reacting to external stimuli with little apparent internal processing, repeating a set of instinctive or trained behaviors = not having free will.

By that definition, I don't think anyone (except perhaps a hardcore solipsist) would disagree that all healthy human beings have free will. Not much of a debate there, frankly.

Yes, that's the point. I assume, that's why 75% of people answered they have free will. The other 25% got confused by the question and started unnecessary hair splitting.

What I find far more interesting - and far more improbable - is the idea that people are capable of behaving in a way that is neither deterministic nor random.

But it's so much beside the point whether our thinking is "deterministic" or "random" or whatever word you wish to call it. I can agree with you fully that we are biological machines and that in your (impossible) experiment the same choices would have been made given the same initial state of reality, and still claim that I have free will, distinct from animals. See how it works? You're just making it unnecessary hard for yourselves. There's nothing profound to discover by imagining how impossible experiments would play out, so why obsess about them? More generally, what practical ramifications can an impossible thought experiment have for anyone (except slight entertainment value)?

[arebelspy]

Deliberating, ability to intent, acting with premeditation = having free will. Predictably and immediately reacting to external stimuli with little apparent internal processing, repeating a set of instinctive or trained behaviors = not having free will.

By that definition, I don't think anyone (except perhaps a hardcore solipsist) would disagree that all healthy human beings have free will. Not much of a debate there, frankly.

Yes, that's the point. I assume, that's why 75% of people answered they have free will. The other 25% got confused by the question and started unnecessary hair splitting.

The point is to just define away the debate by picking a definition that everyone will agree with, and then claim anyone who doesn't just misunderstands that definition?

What I find far more interesting - and far more improbable - is the idea that people are capable of behaving in a way that is neither deterministic nor random.

But it's so much beside the point whether our thinking is "deterministic" or "random" or whatever word you wish to call it. I can agree with you fully that we are biological machines and that in your (impossible) experiment the same choices would have been made given the same initial state of reality, and still claim that I have free will, distinct from animals. See how it works? You're just making it unnecessary hard for yourselves. There's nothing profound to discover by imagining how impossible experiments would play out, so why obsess about them? More generally, what practical ramifications can an impossible thought experiment have for anyone (except slight entertainment value)?

We get that you don't want to debate or discuss those thought experiments, but I find it weird that you can't accept that we do, and we have different desires than you, and you can't let us just discuss them without butting in and waving your arms around to tell us we shouldn't be discussing it because it's pointless. 

[arebelspy]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

Sooo... no responses to this.

I find it weird that a supermajority hold an opinion but no one is willing to defend or discuss it.

I have to ask then: is that opinion well thought out then, or is it just a gut feeling?  What conclusion would someone holding that opinion reach if they did spend some time deliberating on the topic?

What I find far more interesting - and far more improbable - is the idea that people are capable of behaving in a way that is neither deterministic nor random. In other words, it's the idea that in a given situation, a given person is physically capable of making multiple different choices, and the way they make their choice in a nonrandom fashion that nevertheless doesn't follow any natural (or even supernatural) laws. That would be true free will, and the only "evidence" that such a thing exists is our own subjective experience.

As a thought experiment, consider this. Let's say we could rewind to when I first started thinking about writing this reply. Let's imagine that we could "reset" every bit of matter and energy in the universe to the exact same state it was in at that instant. Now we let events play out a second time. Could I have chosen to do anything other than write the words you now see in this post? Keep in mind that every molecule, atom, and subatomic particle has been returned to the exact same position, velocity, energy state, and so forth (I know, Heisenberg, etc., etc.)...and that includes the particles that constitute my brain, as well as every memory it contains and every personality trait it encompasses. How can my brain choose to do anything other than...what it chose to do? The only answers I can think of rely on tiny quantum randomnesses somehow cascading into the entire brain making a different choice. But that wouldn't be free will - that would just be me randomly choosing something different.

It seems to me that aside from weird quantum randomness, a brain is a physical system that can only react to stimuli according to the laws of physics. It may carefully deliberate over different future possibilities, calculating and considering and pondering and planning, but that entire process is dictated by the basic laws of physics acting on an extremely complex neural system. There's no more freedom in the final answer than a calculator has when working out the answer to a very difficult math problem.

And yes, if this is all true, it does have a frightening tendency to make ideas like culpability and justice and so forth seem pretty silly. That's why most of us who disbelieve in free will tend to choose - hehe - to continue living as if we do have it. A world in which everyone believed they had no free will would likely get pretty nasty.

Well said.  We have to act as if we have free will, and as an idea it's beneficial for society, but that doesn't mean it exists in the "could have done otherwise" form in your second paragraph.  That's what the determinists are claiming (even if it's pointless ass anything practical, as anything other than a theoretical exercise - if you want to rant about that more, please don't bother).

[Raay]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

Sooo... no responses to this.

I find it weird that a supermajority hold an opinion but no one is willing to defend or discuss it.

Maybe it's because when I attempt to express an opinion you're telling me in a roundabout way to shut up. So I will.

[arebelspy]

Maybe it's because when I attempt to express an opinion you're telling me in a roundabout way to shut up. So I will.

What you have expressed is not an answer to the question.

What you have expressed is, in essence: "the question is irrelevant because I'm going to use a definition everyone agrees with, and your definition is stupid, and the question is stupid because it's just theoretical and not practical."

Feel free to shut up, or not, it's just not something we can actually discuss, because you are saying the debate is pointless, rather than engaging in the debate. 

I just don't want to discuss whether or not we should discuss it - I'd rather just discuss it, because I want to.   :)