77
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
On the contrary ! "Right and wrong" have EVERYTHING to do with the concept of "free will". This is the Wittgensteinian point I keep hammering !

Right and wrong sounds like beneficial and harmful. What does it have to do with free will?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:02 pm
@Francis,
...only if the hammer has Zuhandigkeit ! Wink
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:05 pm
@fresco,
Funny that you keep hammering a Wittgensteinian point with a Heiddegerian concept.. Twisted Evil
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:06 pm
@litewave,
Quote:
Right and wrong sounds like beneficial and harmful. What does it have to do with free will?


Because that's exactly the sort of everyday context in which we use the phrase "free will" . We do not use it for choosing a tie.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:10 pm
@Francis,
Francis, you are on the ball !
(According to Richard Rorty , earlier H equates to later W.)
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:19 pm
@litewave,
Quote:
Why should we not stop harmful actions?
Because we need free will to determine they are harmful. Otherwise it is someone doing something for their reasons, no better than our reasons, just different.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:29 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
Right and wrong are value judgements influenced by cultural conditioning.
Influenced, yes, but in the main they are instinctive. Murder is an example where instincts determine our reasons, but we still have a choice. Or are we to believe non-murderers have different instincts to murderers ? Why isnt choice a reason in litewaves simplification ?

How do we reconcile a human mind's imagination with just a set of reasons ?

Are we to believe that an assembly is just a pile of parts and has no greater complexity ?
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:35 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Why should we not stop harmful actions?
Because we need free will to determine they are harmful. Otherwise it is someone doing something for their reasons, no better than our reasons, just different.


No. This is not a function of so-called "free will." What you're talking about here is cultural norms.
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:36 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Because that's exactly the sort of everyday context in which we use the phrase "free will" . We do not use it for choosing a tie.

I thought people use it for any choice they make. Anyway, I don't deny that an illusion of free will exists. I just deny that free will exists.
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:40 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Because we need free will to determine they are harmful.

No, we need reasons to determine that something is harmful.
0 Replies
 
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 04:44 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Or are we to believe non-murderers have different instincts to murderers ?

They have different reasons.

Quote:
Why isnt choice a reason in litewaves simplification ?

Why would you choose? Because of reasons or unintentionally. So the choice is determined by reasons or happens unintentionally.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 05:57 pm
@litewave,
Quote:
I thought people use it for any choice they make.

Oh yes ?...when did you last hear the phrase "I chose this shirt of my own free will ?" People never use it that way in normal circumstances.

Quote:
Anyway, I don't deny that an illusion of free will exists. I just deny that free will exists.


Fine...that means you throw out all legal systems based on "culpability", and concepts of citizenship based on "responsible behavior". It that okay ?
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:02 pm
@litewave,
litewave wrote:

I can prove that a solution to the equation 0=1 does not exist.

No. You can prove that 1=1, and that 0=0. Proofs are done in positive statements with supporting statements. If you do not believe in free will, then our actions are predetermined and we're just waiting for the sand to fall. Your challenge is to prove that all outcomes are due to natural forces.

litewave wrote:

Similar with free will - it's a logical nonsense.

Because you say so.

T
K
O
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 06:12 pm
The issue here is that it is futile to talk about "the existence of free will" as though the concept had independence from its social function. The same futility applies to "the existence of God" or "the existence of a nation". "Proof" has nothing to do with usage.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 07:04 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Lets take bad as one choice and good as the only other. In the early days of computing they had means to check RAM with a very small program. They told the computer the reasons for an island, and the reasons for a lake. They told it the nature of a sphere. They then told it the top hemisphere was water and the bottom hemisphere was land. It then had to choose. The result was it cant make a decision so it chews up memory trying. It had nothing but reasons but it cant make a choice.
0 Replies
 
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 02:50 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Oh yes ?...when did you last hear the phrase "I chose this shirt of my own free will ?" People never use it that way in normal circumstances.

Many people I have talked with about free will take it for granted that we use free will when we make any conscious choice.

Quote:
Fine...that means you throw out all legal systems based on "culpability", and concepts of citizenship based on "responsible behavior". It that okay ?

I don't throw out those systems. Law and norms of conduct serve a motivational/educational purpose. They reward beneficial actions and punish harmful actions, thus motivate and teach people to do good and not bad, to be responsible citizens. The principle of culpability means that the person who does bad will bear the consequences. That's necessary for the motivational/educational purpose.
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 03:02 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
No. You can prove that 1=1, and that 0=0. Proofs are done in positive statements with supporting statements. If you do not believe in free will, then our actions are predetermined and we're just waiting for the sand to fall. Your challenge is to prove that all outcomes are due to natural forces.

Proving that 0=1 is false is the same as proving that 0<>1 is true. Didn't you do proofs of inequalities in school?
Everything in nature is not predetrmined. There are also uncaused events. (These would of course be unintentional, without reasons.)
Address my argument in the OP and show me where it is possible for free will to exist.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 03:16 am
@litewave,
Sorry, you simply don't get it.

On the one hand you want to talk about "the illusion of free will and on the other you say people should "bear the consequences" for their actions". That is logical nonsense !

The only way out of such word salad is to recognise that concepts are the currency of social exchange, and like money, concepts only have "value" by local contextual agreement. When we move from one context to another, the meaning/value of a concept changes.

BTW, the same argument applies to the concept "proof".
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 03:40 am
@fresco,
Quote:
On the one hand you want to talk about "the illusion of free will and on the other you say people should "bear the consequences" for their actions". That is logical nonsense !

Why should it be logical nonsense? People can bear consequences of their action even when they don't use free will. When you eat poisoned food without knowing it is poisoned you will bear health consequences.
In the legal system people without free will can and should bear consequences of their actions because those consequences teach them not to commit such actions, even before they commit them (if they know about them in advance).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 04:03 am
@litewave,
But don't you see that the mechanistic/conditioning argument must equally be applied to your own thoughts by you! i,e. The "reason" that you think in mechanistic terms is because you have been conditioned by the couple of hundred years of "success" of mechanisms. (Read point 1 above for the problems with such "success".) Reductionism simply does not work in the social sciences.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 11:20:05