Free Will

There seem to be two levels to refute absolute "free will".

1. The reductionist argument of naive realism - where mental activity can be reduced to deterministic physics and chemistry.

2. The transcendent argument - where "self" dissolves as part of a timeless holism in which "actors actions and objects" are transient ripples in the flux.

Since the second can encompass the first by arguing for the illusion separate "things" , and that "causality" lies only the mind of an so-call "independent observer", the conclusion is that "free will" is a social convention which is associated with the concept of "responsibility of individuals for their actions". It is required to support other social conventions such as "sin" and "guilt" within the interactional network which constitutes current social reality.

Whether the transcendent argument is accepted or not, we cannot analyse "free will" outside the specific contexts in which it is used.
Those contexts involve social actions with social consequences
including "self" debating with "self".

Which is another way of saying that free will exists with limitations.

Free will is an obtuse concept; most people are constrained by the environment in which we/they live. The potential of any individual to what we call "succeed" in life - to get a good education, good health, and good job, are all constrained by where we are born and nurtured. Some societies still do not have any of the modern "conveniences" of developed countries, but that doesn't mean they're unhappy or have not met their maximum potential in life. Free will is based on one's value; they are never the same from one individual to the next.

Good point. It wouldn't completely cover the concept of divine omniscience, however

God foresees, foreordains, and accomplishes all things by an unchanging, eternal, and effacious will. By this thunderbolt free will sinks shattered in the dust.

I see that all men are but the sport of Destiny, and if there do exist some gloomy and inexorable being, who allows a despised herd of creatures to go on multiplying here, he values them as nothing; he looks down upon... our virtues and our misdeeds, upon the horror of war and the cruel plagues that ravage the earth, as things indifferent to him.

Your use of many names: Is it intended to cause obfuscation? Good job. Do you mind if I just call you Chumly?

I know of no other alternatives to the argument of free will vs. determinism other than to relabel the absence of free will as predestination or reprobation.

Your attempts at erudition add nothing to the discussion. If you think the idea of free will is absurd, say so. If you opine that the absence of free will is something other than determinism, predestination, or reprobation, say so.

I, for one, believe I have free will subject to physical limitations previously articulated. See my sig line for a historical perspective.

In my initial post, I asked others to tell how their definition of free will might apply to criminal justice.

Aside from the above, I find your questions absurd and irrelevant. I challenge you to convince us otherwise.

Well there could be or perhaps there could not be.

OK you made the claim, now substantiate it:
Why could there be free will?
Why could there not be free will?.

There can't be congruency and logicality unless or until you respond in kind to the particulars of my posts Pete. As such there are a few additional points you have failed to respond to Fred:

1) You keep trying to rephrase the question in such a manner as to give the argument of free will conceptual substance and/or actual substance. The problem is there is nothing you have put forward to substantiate the question of free will as more than an absurdity, hence my bladder jokes

2) As discussed, you would need to first argue that the question of free will is something more than an absurdity outside of the minds of those that need to believe in free will / no free will; this you have not done Dude.

3) If you want to argue that the presumption of free will is a cornerstone of so-called "criminal justice" have at 'er, however presumption is neither fact nor proof nor argument in and of itself. In this case the best that one could say is that free will is a cornerstone of "criminal justice". However even within this myopic proof-exempt marriage, there are legitimate arguments such as peer pressure, social status, racial status, temporary insanity positions, youth, etc that are counter to the marriage of free will and "criminal justice".

4) As to your curt query "Functional?" yes show me that justice exists beyond the conceptual Clem. Else how can I rationally dialog on justice and free will even if the presumption of free will within our justice system is on record.

Sorry neo, but those quotations are just gibberish to me.

e.g. what can "fore" or "accomplish" possibly mean in a "timeless reality"?
Its just "theological word salad" which might aspire to, yet dismally misses, the "metalogic" of a zen koan.

neologist wrote:

Your use of many names: Is it intended to cause obfuscation? Good job. Do you mind if I just call you Chumly?

I know of no other alternatives to the argument of free will vs. determinism other than to relabel the absence of free will as predestination or reprobation.

Your attempts at erudition add nothing to the discussion. If you think the idea of free will is absurd, say so. If you opine that the absence of free will is something other than determinism, predestination, or reprobation, say so.

I, for one, believe I have free will subject to physical limitations previously articulated. See my sig line for a historical perspective.

In my initial post, I asked others to tell how their definition of free will might apply to criminal justice.

Aside from the above, I find your questions absurd and irrelevant. I challenge you to convince us otherwise.

Don't fret so simply because I bring some of your cherished notions to task and you naturally enough stumble. You set the stage, thus I reiterate, not that you appear willing to respond in kind. It's hardly rocket science though........

neologist wrote:

Well there could be or perhaps there could not be.

Chumly wrote:

OK you made the claim, now substantiate it:
Why could there be free will?
Why could there not be free will?.

The reset is dead simple too!

Chumly wrote:

There can't be congruency and logicality unless or until you respond in kind to the particulars of my posts Pete. As such there are a few additional points you have failed to respond to Fred:

1) You keep trying to rephrase the question in such a manner as to give the argument of free will conceptual substance and/or actual substance. The problem is there is nothing you have put forward to substantiate the question of free will as more than an absurdity, hence my bladder jokes

2) As discussed, you would need to first argue that the question of free will is something more than an absurdity outside of the minds of those that need to believe in free will / no free will; this you have not done Dude.

3) If you want to argue that the presumption of free will is a cornerstone of so-called "criminal justice" have at 'er, however presumption is neither fact nor proof nor argument in and of itself. In this case the best that one could say is that free will is a cornerstone of "criminal justice". However even within this myopic proof-exempt marriage, there are legitimate arguments such as peer pressure, social status, racial status, temporary insanity positions, youth, etc that are counter to the marriage of free will and "criminal justice".

4) As to your curt query "Functional?" yes show me that justice exists beyond the conceptual Clem. Else how can I rationally dialog on justice and free will even if the presumption of free will within our justice system is on record.

bellsybop

Since "freewill" is. by definition, equally capable of destruction, your use of "therefore" is problematic.