There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[bilby]

Imagine choosing to raise your arm, but it doesn't happen; and it is important to note here that it was physically able to raise. So imagine that none of your choices happen even though they were physically suppose to. That is what it would be like with no free will.

More specifically, you had the freedom to choose, but you didn't have the will to initiate the physical. Many times we have the freedom and the will (hence free will). What are the chances that those things happen to align probabilistically? Maybe it is an illusion, but I would argue by Occam's Razor that it is more likely we are the freedom and the will in a universe sometimes trying to constrain it.

You are still pulling the horse along with a cart.

If I didn't raise my arm, when nothing was stopping me from doing so, then I do not ever believe that I wished to do so but it failed to occur. I believe that I wished not to, and was successful. The alternative is insanity.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the belief (after the fact) that what occurred was what was willed, is anything other than a post-hoc rationalization; The world looks exactly as we would predict it to look if the whole process was the reverse of what your intuition is suggesting it to be. There is no evidence for will; and I hypothesize that this is because it does not exist - which is the parsimonious and correct approach when considering an entity that is not required to explain our observations of reality.

The evidence for will is the same as the evidence for Phlogiston - it kinda looks like it might be a bit possible, as long as you don't mind positing entities that are not required in order to explain the real world.

People like the idea of will (and even more, the idea of 'free will'); They also like the idea of Gods, Demons, Dragons and Unicorns. But if they want anyone else to agree with their claim that Dragons are real, they need to provide some evidence.

Occam's razor says that you should not multiply entities without cause. The universe with will is more entities than the universe without will. Occam says that will does not exist unless you can show a need for it - an observation with no more parsimonious explanation. Occam did not say that things are real if you feel like they should be.

My point was to give an example of a universe without free will. This will help me explain what it is and why we might have it.

I contend that the universe we observe is, in all respects, indistinguishable from a universe without free will. As a result, I see no need for any such hypothetical example; I can just look around. And insofar as your example differs from the universe we observe, from my perspective, it is simply flawed.

It's as though I said to you "just imagine how strange and different the world would be if water flowed downhill". You don't have to imagine; and if I went on to examine some way in which I guessed that this strange 'water flows downhill' world would differ from reality, all that would tell you is that my guess was stupid and wrong.

In a universe with no will only the freedom to will (therefor no free will)

In a what? That might make sense to you, but I cannot make any sense of it. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

if you have the ability to raise your arm and you want to raise your arm, your arm may not raise. All you had was the freedom of what you want to will but didn't actually will. Now, if you have will but no freedom, you will always be doing things that you didn't want to do. Finally, no freedom or will would be like being a vegetable who doesn't even want and has no will.

You can see how free will by these composite definitions are meaningful because of the idea that they may or may not exist.

It's apparent that YOU can see something meaningful here; But I cannot make head nor tail of what you are trying to say. Can you please try to clarify?

As for the larger more common definition of the ability to have done otherwise, with infinite splits, it may be possible that 2 splits chose A in separate universes, and there will always be room for one more.

What? There is infinite room; in MWI, all possible events actually occur.

And as you say about the connotations of free will, I will warn you not to relate free will too closely with magic, god, etc. That may blind you to the concept and you just won't see it for what it is or what it might be.

You sound like a fairground psychic. "I must warn you against listening to people who don't believe as you do, for no good can come of it"; "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

Free will, like all pretend entities, is pretend - that's its one defining feature. In this, it is no different from Gods, magic, unicorns, etc.

If you want something that others think is pretend, to be understood and accepted by them as actually real, you need evidence. Not cryptic warnings against the dangers of skepticism.

 

[Wiploc]

All thought experiments are possible world scenarios.

No, some of them involve contradictions.

 

[ryan]

I am not claiming to "know" it any more than you are claiming to "know" everything that you believe. Why do I believe it? Glad you asked.

What could be "before religion"? Animism? It seems to me that religion exists because humans tend to anthropomorphize natural forces. We cause our body parts to move by conscious will, so maybe conscious will is behind natural events. It's not a huge leap to base a causal model on animism. And, if people see natural phenomena as caused by conscious beings, then it stands to reason that the causers can be reasoned with and cajoled. That would be a way to gain favorable treatment from the environment. It would also suggest that bad treatment was caused by disapproval of our own behavior. Gods have always judged human behavior. Abraham's god was no different from any of the others.

Maybe the ancients used the idea of free will as a way reason to punish crime since a predetermined person wouldn't have a choice (which is still an ethical argument today). Then, for the few that got away with using their free will against society/tribe, it would only make sense to try to convince them that someone or something else would always be watching.

It seems reasonable that religion come from free will this way.

Right, but we don't need to talk about the "ancients". As you point out, it is the same point of view today. People blame each other for their behavior. That is part of the natural mechanism that drives social organization--rewards and punishments for desirable and undesirable behaviors. If people cannot help themselves, then we can't very well blame them. However, there is another factor that we need to consider--deterrence in the general population. If there is no punishment for undesirable behavior, then people are less motivated to avoid it. One might punish a child in order to get that individual child to avoid such behavior in the future, but sometimes individuals disobey anyway. In a general population, punishment serves as an example to others. Giving a student a detention for throwing spitballs during class may fail to deter that individual, but the punishment does affect how others in the classroom choose to obey. Atheists go to hell so that other sinners repent. Again, reward and punishment is all about setting up a "mental program" that determines future behavior. Social determinism isn't physical determinism, but it is still causal.

At the beginning you said that free will has its roots in religion. I said and explained in my response how religion might have its roots in free will. In other words, it may have been a need for society to make people think before expressing their free will. This free will is probably more and more popular the further back one goes in history due to that lack biological understanding (brain science to be specific)

 

[ryan]

My point was to give an example of a universe without free will. This will help me explain what it is and why we might have it.

I contend that the universe we observe is, in all respects, indistinguishable from a universe without free will. As a result, I see no need for any such hypothetical example; I can just look around. And insofar as your example differs from the universe we observe, from my perspective, it is simply flawed.

It's as though I said to you "just imagine how strange and different the world would be if water flowed downhill". You don't have to imagine; and if I went on to examine some way in which I guessed that this strange 'water flows downhill' world would differ from reality, all that would tell you is that my guess was stupid and wrong.

So then read on and understand what I am saying.

In a universe with no will only the freedom to will (therefor no free will)

In a what? That might make sense to you, but I cannot make any sense of it. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

The problem here is that you chopped the introductory preposition of the sentence of. I am presenting two examples of no free will.

if you have the ability to raise your arm and you want to raise your arm, your arm may not raise. All you had was the freedom of what you want to will but didn't actually will. Now, if you have will but no freedom, you will always be doing things that you didn't want to do. Finally, no freedom or will would be like being a vegetable who doesn't even want and has no will.

You can see how free will by these composite definitions are meaningful because of the idea that they may or may not exist.

It's apparent that YOU can see something meaningful here; But I cannot make head nor tail of what you are trying to say. Can you please try to clarify?

As for the larger more common definition of the ability to have done otherwise, with infinite splits, it may be possible that 2 splits chose A in separate universes, and there will always be room for one more.

What? There is infinite room; in MWI, all possible events actually occur.

That's why I said "with infinite splits". There are some theories having a max number of universes that can split, something like 10^500.

And as you say about the connotations of free will, I will warn you not to relate free will too closely with magic, god, etc. That may blind you to the concept and you just won't see it for what it is or what it might be.

Don't be stupid; I was just responding to what you said to me about motivations for free will. In the same way you think people are only motivated for free will because of religion, etc, I am trying to tell you that you seem to be using that concern as a reason to avoid accepting free will.

 

[bilby]

So then read on and understand what I am saying.

In a universe with no will only the freedom to will (therefor no free will)

In a what? That might make sense to you, but I cannot make any sense of it. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

The problem here is that you chopped the introductory preposition of the sentence of. I am presenting two examples of no free will.

if you have the ability to raise your arm and you want to raise your arm, your arm may not raise. All you had was the freedom of what you want to will but didn't actually will. Now, if you have will but no freedom, you will always be doing things that you didn't want to do. Finally, no freedom or will would be like being a vegetable who doesn't even want and has no will.

You can see how free will by these composite definitions are meaningful because of the idea that they may or may not exist.

It's apparent that YOU can see something meaningful here; But I cannot make head nor tail of what you are trying to say. Can you please try to clarify?

As for the larger more common definition of the ability to have done otherwise, with infinite splits, it may be possible that 2 splits chose A in separate universes, and there will always be room for one more.

What? There is infinite room; in MWI, all possible events actually occur.

That's why I said "with infinite splits". There are some theories having a max number of universes that can split, something like 10^500.

And as you say about the connotations of free will, I will warn you not to relate free will too closely with magic, god, etc. That may blind you to the concept and you just won't see it for what it is or what it might be.

Don't be stupid; I was just responding to what you said to me about motivations for free will. In the same way you think people are only motivated for free will because of religion, etc, I am trying to tell you that you seem to be using that concern as a reason to avoid accepting free will.

I don't have any reason to avoid accepting free will other than "There is not one shred of evidence for it". That the exact same reasoning also applies to religion, ghosts, unicorns, etc. is not important at all - except as an illustration of the irrational consequences that arise if one were to accept things without any evidence for their existence.

 

[DBT]

DBT, do you fancy unpacking what ‘rationality’ means to you?

Just the standard definition, logical, reasoned....the weighing of a set factors, including the cost to benefit ratio of each of the available options; empathy allows you to understand how someone who may be effected by your choice would feel if you did this rather than that, the consequences of actions as opposed to gain or reward.

Stealing may offer instant reward but has the high risk of being caught and punished, the shame to oneself and family if caught, etc, hence the factor of deterrence in the Law of the Land. Some may act on their own ethical standards and seek to be fair toward others, Sociopaths may not care how others are effected by their actions but may be deterred by the thought of getting caught and punished, which effects their decisions.

 

[Copernicus]

I am not claiming to "know" it any more than you are claiming to "know" everything that you believe. Why do I believe it? Glad you asked.

What could be "before religion"? Animism? It seems to me that religion exists because humans tend to anthropomorphize natural forces. We cause our body parts to move by conscious will, so maybe conscious will is behind natural events. It's not a huge leap to base a causal model on animism. And, if people see natural phenomena as caused by conscious beings, then it stands to reason that the causers can be reasoned with and cajoled. That would be a way to gain favorable treatment from the environment. It would also suggest that bad treatment was caused by disapproval of our own behavior. Gods have always judged human behavior. Abraham's god was no different from any of the others.

Maybe the ancients used the idea of free will as a way reason to punish crime since a predetermined person wouldn't have a choice (which is still an ethical argument today). Then, for the few that got away with using their free will against society/tribe, it would only make sense to try to convince them that someone or something else would always be watching.

It seems reasonable that religion come from free will this way.

Right, but we don't need to talk about the "ancients". As you point out, it is the same point of view today. People blame each other for their behavior. That is part of the natural mechanism that drives social organization--rewards and punishments for desirable and undesirable behaviors. If people cannot help themselves, then we can't very well blame them. However, there is another factor that we need to consider--deterrence in the general population. If there is no punishment for undesirable behavior, then people are less motivated to avoid it. One might punish a child in order to get that individual child to avoid such behavior in the future, but sometimes individuals disobey anyway. In a general population, punishment serves as an example to others. Giving a student a detention for throwing spitballs during class may fail to deter that individual, but the punishment does affect how others in the classroom choose to obey. Atheists go to hell so that other sinners repent. Again, reward and punishment is all about setting up a "mental program" that determines future behavior. Social determinism isn't physical determinism, but it is still causal.

At the beginning you said that free will has its roots in religion. I said and explained in my response how religion might have its roots in free will. In other words, it may have been a need for society to make people think before expressing their free will. This free will is probably more and more popular the further back one goes in history due to that lack biological understanding (brain science to be specific)

What I said was that the debate had its roots in religion, not "free will" per se. You can understand what people mean by the expression "free will" (at least, from a historical perspective) by looking at the expression in terms of how it came to be debated by philosophers and theologians. The question of determinism comes in because omniscience is logically incompatible with the idea pointed out by subsymbolic in the OP--that a person at some point in time would be somehow "free" to behave in two different ways. If that were possible, then how could any being, even a deity, conceivably know for certain what choice a person would make? Absolute knowledge of what the future will be precludes freedom to behave other than the outcome that is known.

TBH, I have trouble making sense of what you are trying to say here--that people somehow invented the idea of "free will" in order to manipulate behavior? That would imply that there was a time when people did not assign repsonsibility or blame, but isn't that very likely a biologically determined aspect of human behavior? Are there any human societies that have failed to "invent" the concept of responsibility, praiseworthiness, or blameworthiness? One would expect to come across at least some recorded example of such a society, if it were not a deeply embedded form of behavior in the human psyche.

 

[Subsymbolic]

DBT, do you fancy unpacking what ‘rationality’ means to you?

Just the standard definition, logical, reasoned....the weighing of a set factors, including the cost to benefit ratio of each of the available options; empathy allows you to understand how someone who may be effected by your choice would feel if you did this rather than that, the consequences of actions as opposed to gain or reward.

Stealing may offer instant reward but has the high risk of being caught and punished, the shame to oneself and family if caught, etc, hence the factor of deterrence in the Law of the Land. Some may act on their own ethical standards and seek to be fair toward others, Sociopaths may not care how others are effected by their actions but may be deterred by the thought of getting caught and punished, which effects their decisions.

Cool. I guess I was also wondering what where the content holders of rationality - are the conceptualised or non conceptualised. Are we talking about something like acting on your beliefs to bring about your desires and avoid your fears in a propositional attitude sort of way (Using something none too different from the laws of logic and narrative). Or do you have something more arcane in mind?

 

[ryan]

I don't have any reason to avoid accepting free will other than "There is not one shred of evidence for it". That the exact same reasoning also applies to religion, ghosts, unicorns, etc. is not important at all - except as an illustration of the irrational consequences that arise if one were to accept things without any evidence for their existence.

I don't claim it actually exists; I am just trying to explain that it's possible and how it might be possible, proof of concept.

 

[ryan]

At the beginning you said that free will has its roots in religion. I said and explained in my response how religion might have its roots in free will. In other words, it may have been a need for society to make people think before expressing their free will. This free will is probably more and more popular the further back one goes in history due to that lack biological understanding (brain science to be specific)

What I said was that the debate had its roots in religion, not "free will" per se. You can understand what people mean by the expression "free will" (at least, from a historical perspective) by looking at the expression in terms of how it came to be debated by philosophers and theologians. The question of determinism comes in because omniscience is logically incompatible with the idea pointed out by subsymbolic in the OP--that a person at some point in time would be somehow "free" to behave in two different ways. If that were possible, then how could any being, even a deity, conceivably know for certain what choice a person would make? Absolute knowledge of what the future will be precludes freedom to behave other than the outcome that is known.

TBH, I have trouble making sense of what you are trying to say here--that people somehow invented the idea of "free will" in order to manipulate behavior? That would imply that there was a time when people did not assign repsonsibility or blame, but isn't that very likely a biologically determined aspect of human behavior? Are there any human societies that have failed to "invent" the concept of responsibility, praiseworthiness, or blameworthiness? One would expect to come across at least some recorded example of such a society, if it were not a deeply embedded form of behavior in the human psyche.

I was saying that free will probably goes further back than religion (at least before Judaism in particular). With no evolution theories and little understanding of how the brain/body function, it would seem like individual agency would be the default theory. So to keep people from using it irresponsibly in secret, maybe notions of omniscience would help keep people choosing the right things behind closed doors.

 

[Emily Lake]

But now you are talking about 100% control over the universe. I am talking about choosing between A, B and C.

That is pretty much one of those "freewill = ability to ignore gravity through choice" sorts of arguments.

 

[Emily Lake]

But you gave one example where clearly we wouldn't have free will over. We are constrained to choosing A, B, C ... and not much more than that.

To really break it down, if we only have control over one bit of information, say every minute, that is leaving an unimaginable amount of processing to the rest of the universe.

I am saying that you have no control at all. There's no physical mechanism whereby you can control anything.

Things are unpredictable, and people mistake their inability to predict their future as some kind of control, but it's an illusion.

People are very good at fooling themselves into thinking that they are in control of events that they have no influence over - the existence of prayer proves that.

There is no evidence whatsoever for free will - unless you count a vague feeling that 'things ought to be the way you expect them to be' as 'evidence'.

Some people think that they can harness the power of positive thinking to influence traffic lights. Some think that they have the ability to influence another part of physical reality - the choices their brains make - by 'will power'. But there's no reason to agree with either group.

Predicting the future isn't free will. That's a distraction from the fundamental concept here: agency and choice.

Think this through. If there is no free will, if as you say, the universe has 100% control over you (and everything)... then that means that every sentient being in existence isn't actually sentient. It means that every action they take is effectively pre-programmed. They cannot do anything other than what they actually did.

What are the ramifications of this?

It means that punishment is pointless, and is effectively torture. Your child couldn't possibly have been more careful with that grape juice. She was predestined by the universe to ignore your request to stay in the kitchen. She had no choice to do anything other than to spill it all over your white carpet. Why would you punish a child for that? It's tantamount to punishing a person for having a foot too small to fit the shoe you want them to wear. Punishment of all sorts becomes torture if there is no agency.

It means that our ability to extrapolate, hypothesize, and imagine is all a grand delusion foisted upon us. The entirety of our social structures are illusory - when a drive through clerk asks you what you want for dinner, that's just a waste of time. You can't actually make a choice. You being indecisive and having to think about whether you want the burger or the chicken sandwich is really just in your imagination - you can't actually make a choice, it's all a delusion that all of humanity has managed to share, and have built our societies, our laws, and out language around.

That's a hell of a delusion.

If there is no agency, no ability to actually make a choice... where does saving come into play? Where does foregoing an immediate benefit in favor of a longer term one come into consideration? The entire concept of saving, of delaying gratification, of investment (not limited to financial) rests upon the principle of choice.

 

[Emily Lake]

In the MWI, there cannot be any choice made, because all choices are made. Everything that can happen, happens; Where's the choice? It's basically a static block multiverse, with branches at every possible decision point - our 'self' follows both branches, and is completely unaware of the part of itself that took a different course, giving the illusion that a choice was made. As the choice was an illusion, so must be any idea that the choices are made freely or by the influence of a 'will' - there's simply not a choice at all. Ever.

Of course we can't say that it is definitely, provably, false that there is a "subjective force" piloting QM; But to assume that there is such a force, is to generate a hypothetical that is not needed to explain observed reality - which is unparsimonious, and therefore to be considered wrong until shown to be right - just like Russell's teapot. 'Subjective force', 'Will', or 'Free will' don't explain any observation that isn't more parsimoniously explained without recourse to these concepts.

Of course, that's just my hypothesis; You can easily show it to be false by producing any observation that is inconsistent with it, and that can only be explained by recourse to the more complex idea of 'Subjective force', 'will' or even 'free will' - Just as Newtonian Gravity is shown to be an incomplete model by the various observations of reality that require Relativity to explain them.

Humor me here. Explain the concept of "decision" in a way that is more parsimoniously explained without agency.

 

[Emily Lake]

But they each chose what they wanted to choose (regardless of whether or not they get what they chose). They each got what they willed by the mere act of the will existing for them.

You are putting the cart before the horse. They got what they got; And they believe, after the fact, that they have chosen. But there was no choice. Choice is impossible - all possible outcomes occurred, and no reference frame is preferred above any other. Their votes cancel each other out; They can't both be right, they can both be wrong, and there is no rationale that allows us to assign 'right' to one of them and 'wrong' to the other. So they are both wrong in their belief that they made a choice, or that that choice was mediated by 'will', much less 'free will'.

Imagine choosing to raise your arm, but it doesn't happen; and it is important to note here that it was physically able to raise. So imagine that none of your choices happen even though they were physically suppose to. That is what it would be like with no free will.

More specifically, you had the freedom to choose, but you didn't have the will to initiate the physical. Many times we have the freedom and the will (hence free will). What are the chances that those things happen to align probabilistically? Maybe it is an illusion, but I would argue by Occam's Razor that it is more likely we are the freedom and the will in a universe sometimes trying to constrain it.

Agreed - as far as I can tell, the existence of constrained will is a far simpler and observably supported theory than one that relies on all of our perceptions being a mass delusion and the hypothetical that if we could just know every single thing (even though we know for a fact that we can't know every single thing), then we'd be able to perfectly predict everything (even though we know for a fact that we can't perfectly predict everything).

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is there any debate over free will in the first place? It has its roots in religion, and, as Juma pointed out earlier, responsibility is a key component. The reason why is obvious. Religion has always been about reward and punishment. In the context of Abrahamic religions, it is about disobeying God and the righteousness of a deity that blames people for choosing to disobey. God is obviously relying on the same mechanism that parents rely on to train children to obey--the threat of punishment and the promise of reward. It's just that it is really hard for the theistically-inclined person to explain freedom to disobey in the context of an omniscient, omnipotent judge.

There is a sense in which a robot has free will. It has a list of priorities and makes an assessment of its environment. Priorities resolve goal conflicts. That is, robots have to make value judgments according to the outcomes that they project. And those value judgments aren't necessarily put there by a programmer. They could be put in the robot's "head" by a generalized machine-learning program, just as human beings come equipped with a "learning program" that is hardwired into their brains. We just don't like to think of robotic choices as "free", because they do not prioritize on the same basis that we do--i.e. emotions and moods caused by electrochemical brain activity. Reward and punishment for humans are techniques for adjusting the list of mental priorities.

What parents do is they use reward and punishment to guide children into setting up a mental "autopilot" that keeps them safe and happy in the long run. Programmers do something that is analogous, but machines aren't really programmed by a systematic manipulation of behavior through reward and punishment. Endorphins don't flood robotic brains when they succeed, but we have other ways of rewarding success in their behavioral patterns.

How do you know that the idea of free will did not come before religion?

Maybe the ancients used the idea of free will as a way reason to punish crime since a predetermined person wouldn't have a choice (which is still an ethical argument today). Then, for the few that got away with using their free will against society/tribe, it would only make sense to try to convince them that someone or something else would always be watching.

It seems reasonable that religion come from free will this way.

The term free will came from religion. Specifically, it came from the debate between whether or not a human is able to make decisions, or whether god has already determined exactly what each person is ever going to do.

The concept, however, is undoubtedly far older. I would guarantee that we had a concept of free will well before Luther nailed his complaints to the church door.

 

[Copernicus]

Why is there any debate over free will in the first place? It has its roots in religion, and, as Juma pointed out earlier, responsibility is a key component. The reason why is obvious. Religion has always been about reward and punishment. In the context of Abrahamic religions, it is about disobeying God and the righteousness of a deity that blames people for choosing to disobey. God is obviously relying on the same mechanism that parents rely on to train children to obey--the threat of punishment and the promise of reward. It's just that it is really hard for the theistically-inclined person to explain freedom to disobey in the context of an omniscient, omnipotent judge.

There is a sense in which a robot has free will. It has a list of priorities and makes an assessment of its environment. Priorities resolve goal conflicts. That is, robots have to make value judgments according to the outcomes that they project. And those value judgments aren't necessarily put there by a programmer. They could be put in the robot's "head" by a generalized machine-learning program, just as human beings come equipped with a "learning program" that is hardwired into their brains. We just don't like to think of robotic choices as "free", because they do not prioritize on the same basis that we do--i.e. emotions and moods caused by electrochemical brain activity. Reward and punishment for humans are techniques for adjusting the list of mental priorities.

What parents do is they use reward and punishment to guide children into setting up a mental "autopilot" that keeps them safe and happy in the long run. Programmers do something that is analogous, but machines aren't really programmed by a systematic manipulation of behavior through reward and punishment. Endorphins don't flood robotic brains when they succeed, but we have other ways of rewarding success in their behavioral patterns.

How do you know that the idea of free will did not come before religion?

Maybe the ancients used the idea of free will as a way reason to punish crime since a predetermined person wouldn't have a choice (which is still an ethical argument today). Then, for the few that got away with using their free will against society/tribe, it would only make sense to try to convince them that someone or something else would always be watching.

It seems reasonable that religion come from free will this way.

The term free will came from religion. Specifically, it came from the debate between whether or not a human is able to make decisions, or whether god has already determined exactly what each person is ever going to do.

The concept, however, is undoubtedly far older. I would guarantee that we had a concept of free will well before Luther nailed his complaints to the church door.

First of all, the term "religion" has a far broader meaning than just an instance of religion in recorded history, e.g. Judaism. We know that there were prehistoric religions. So it doesn't make any sense to say that the concept itself existed "before religion". When has there ever been a human society without some kind of organized religious belief? Secondly, the term "free will" refers to a more modern conundrum regarding the nature of decision-making, and it is rooted in debates over human culpability. In the context of belief in an omnimax "God", it becomes very difficult to blame humans for their bad behavior, given God's theoretical advance knowledge of how they will behave and his theoretical ability to prevent bad behavior. It is no longer just a theological debate, however. From a legal perspective, it is very tricky to assign culpability, because we know that mental illnesses, which invariably have physical causes, sometimes lead people to break laws. Punishment such as incarceration and fines cannot cure, prevent, or deter mental illness, so how is the legal system supposed to deal with such situations?

My perspective is that of a compatibilist--that when you analyze the nature of decision-making behavior, you discover that it is a fully-determined process. That is, "free will" refers only to that aspect of the decision-making process that reward and punishment can reasonably affect. We can create machines that make decisions, but they don't have "free will" only because they can't be rewarded or punished in any meaningful way. Their priorities are altered programmatically, not by threats or promises. They can't be "culpable" in the sense that human beings can. So they don't have "free will". An armed drone can be programmed to shoot at people, but threatening it with jail or execution for shooting innocent civilians will not deter its future behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

What could be "before religion"? Animism? It seems to me that religion exists because humans tend to anthropomorphize natural forces. We cause our body parts to move by conscious will, so maybe conscious will is behind natural events. It's not a huge leap to base a causal model on animism. And, if people see natural phenomena as caused by conscious beings, then it stands to reason that the causers can be reasoned with and cajoled. That would be a way to gain favorable treatment from the environment. It would also suggest that bad treatment was caused by disapproval of our own behavior. Gods have always judged human behavior. Abraham's god was no different from any of the others.

...

If there is no punishment for undesirable behavior, then people are less motivated to avoid it. One might punish a child in order to get that individual child to avoid such behavior in the future, but sometimes individuals disobey anyway. In a general population, punishment serves as an example to others. Giving a student a detention for throwing spitballs during class may fail to deter that individual, but the punishment does affect how others in the classroom choose to obey. Atheists go to hell so that other sinners repent. Again, reward and punishment is all about setting up a "mental program" that determines future behavior. Social determinism isn't physical determinism, but it is still causal.

Even in your argument against free will, you're relying on the existence of free will for any reward/punishment mechanism to function. The entire concept of weighing consequences is predicated on the ability to choose.

Disapproval of behavior, and punishments that serve as lessons for avoidance exist outside of humans. Adult wolves punish puppies when they get too rambunctious or are misbehaving. Momma cats will pop a kitten when they're engaging in behaviors that are risky or unacceptable, or sometimes just annoying. Most mammals that rear young have some level of behavior engineering that they engage in... and some level of teaching that goes along with it. And it's not all pure instinct - look at the variance in behavior patterns between urban and rural raccoons, for instance. Environment plays a role, parents (and social group leaders) play a role in modifying the behavior of each successive generation.

The long-term effects of much behavior modification is to create a routine response. But much of it is based first on that individual entity weighing the consequences of a potential action, then choosing the behavior that is desired.

This entire discussion is based on the concept of choice - it's based on the idea that if you can just explain your position well enough, then the other people will change their mind and choose to adopt your viewpoint. It inherently relies on the ability to make an informed choice about the topic.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't have any reason to avoid accepting free will other than "There is not one shred of evidence for it". That the exact same reasoning also applies to religion, ghosts, unicorns, etc. is not important at all - except as an illustration of the irrational consequences that arise if one were to accept things without any evidence for their existence.

Have you genuinely never in your life thought about the possible consequences of a decision, and selected the option that produced what you considered the best outcome? Really?

Did you give any forethought to what you intended to write in this post? Did you re-read it and modify it in any way? Did you consider whether you were being clear, or whether different phrasing might work better to get your point across, in order to convince someone else to choose to accept your view as more true?

 

[Subsymbolic]

I don't have any reason to avoid accepting free will other than "There is not one shred of evidence for it". That the exact same reasoning also applies to religion, ghosts, unicorns, etc. is not important at all - except as an illustration of the irrational consequences that arise if one were to accept things without any evidence for their existence.

Have you genuinely never in your life thought about the possible consequences of a decision, and selected the option that produced what you considered the best outcome? Really?

Did you give any forethought to what you intended to write in this post? Did you re-read it and modify it in any way? Did you consider whether you were being clear, or whether different phrasing might work better to get your point across, in order to convince someone else to choose to accept your view as more true?

I think his point, that I wholeheartedly don't agree with, is that all of this forethought, modification is all entirely determined - it appears free but that's just an illusion. There's a niced passage in a Tom Robbins Novel that sums it up:

For Christmas that year, Julian gave Sissy a miniature Tyrolean
village. The craftsmanship was remarkable.

There was a tiny cathedral whose stained-glass windows made fruit salad
of sunlight. There was a plaza and ein Biergarten. The Biergarten got
quite noisy on Saturday nights. There was a bakery that smelled always
of hot bread and strudel. There was a town hall and a police station,
with cutaway sections that revealed standard amounts of red tape and
corruption.

There were little Tyroleans in leather britches, intricately stitched,
and, beneath the britches, genitalia of equally fine workmanship. There
were ski shops and many other interesting things, including an
orphanage.

The orphanage was designed to catch fire and burn down every Christmas
Eye. Orphans would dash into the snow with their nightgowns blazing.
Terrible.

Around the second week of January, a fire inspector would come and poke
through the ruins, muttering, "If they had only listened to me, those
children would be alive today."

See his point?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can someone explain manners and a lack of free will? You have young children and older children. Young children are dumb when it comes to social etiquette. Why is it, when taught about it, that they change their behavior. How is a lack of free will not interfering with such a substantial change in behavior?

Take this chart which is a basic chart showing proper social behavior for a child and how it improves. I'm supposed to believe there is no free will when children, who are taught to behave, behave and act more socially appropriate? That the bump in the graph is meaningless, in the context of being taught to act in certain manners?