What Is Man?

[seer]

It would seem that the exercise of free will is to some extent affected by the belief in the existence of free will. What a surprise..

Isn't that interesting...

[shunyadragon]

Then there is no free will. All you have done was to redefine free will in a non classical way. If we really don't have the ability to do otherwise then we are not free in any sense of the word. Compatibilism basically defines free will as the ability to act on your desires apart from outside influence - no duh - if that is the case then an ape has free will.

I was only clarifying Tass's position. Ultimately a society as a whole is responsible for maintaining the social order, controlling crime and violence regardless of whether individuals do or do not have complete free will over their actions as criminals and acts of violence against others. It is very well established that many criminals and others who commit crimes and violent acts against others do not have control or complete free will over their actions.

[seer]

I was only clarifying Tass's position. Ultimately a society as a whole is responsible for maintaining the social order, controlling crime and violence regardless of whether individuals do or do not have complete free will over their actions as criminals and acts of violence against others. It is very well established that many criminals and others who commit crimes and violent acts against others do not have control or complete free will over their actions.

Then Shuny, let's stop playing this word game - what you and the Compatibilists call free will is not free in the least. It is still all determined.

[tabibito]

I was only clarifying Tass's position. Ultimately a society as a whole is responsible for maintaining the social order, controlling crime and violence regardless of whether individuals do or do not have complete free will over their actions as criminals and acts of violence against others. It is very well established that many criminals and others who commit crimes and violent acts against others do not have control or complete free will over their actions.

Oddly - the thing that diminishes free will in these people is generally (but not exclusively) attributed to brain damage of one kind or another.

[shunyadragon]

Oddly - the thing that diminishes free will in these people is generally (but not exclusively) attributed to brain damage of one kind or another.

This is sometimes true, as in the following case: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-change-part-I

. . . but not all cases. Moral responsibility of the self remains an unresolved problem with many mental disorders including mental disorders such as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). I cannot get this complete article, but the abstract is available:

Source: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/philosophy_psychiatry_and_psychology/v019/19.4.meynen01.pdf

Abstract:

In psychiatric literature obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is often linked to the issue of ‘control.’ More precisely, one of the views on OCD is that there is some ‘extra’ or ‘excessive’ control. In this paper, I turn to the philosophy of free will to get a different conceptual angle on OCD and its relationship to control. A line of thought that can be derived from the philosophy of free will suggests that OCD should not be considered as a condition of ‘extra’ control. In fact, OCD would be characterized by a decrease of control. I argue that this view, however open to debate, may have practical implications for therapy.

© Copyright Original Source

This and other problem is basis of the argument that ultimately the responsibility is with society. The individuals who commit crimes and violent acts must be dealt with regardless of individual responsibility for their actions.

[Tassman]

"Some"
"of them"
"believe"

And there you were promoting it as a scientific theory. "Some of them", with or without "believe", says hypothesis.

Nope! I wasn't promoting it as “Scientific Theory”; it’s far too soon to arrive at such a firm conclusion at this stage.

Once again from the link: “And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion..."

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-ev...have-free-will

This level of caution is about where one would expect scientific opinion to be at this point. But, that said, the majority of scientists do in fact incline towards the notion of Free-Will being an illusion. And, unless one is going for seer’s “God-did-it” scenario (for which there’s no credible evidence), I can’t see how it can be otherwise. As Harris says in “Free-Will”: “A person's conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes — genes, childhood experience, etc….” Even Compatibilists, such as Dan Dennett, acknowledge that free will in the classic sense is largely impossible. For all his talk about "Wiggle-Room" and "Elbow Room", he can't say when and how this occurs.

[seer]

As Harris says in “Free-Will”: “A person's conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes — genes, childhood experience, etc….” Even Compatibilists, such as Dan Dennett, acknowledge that free will in the classic sense is largely impossible. For all his talk about "Wiggle-Room" and "Elbow Room", he can't say when and how this occurs.

So Tass, you have no control over what you believe - true or not - correct?

[tabibito]

Nope! I wasn't promoting it as “Scientific Theory”; it’s far too soon to arrive at such a firm conclusion at this stage.

You have declared that there is indisputably no such thing as free will, and have been doing so since pre-crash TWeb. The disclaimer you now have posted is therefore nothing more than an attempt to evade the admission that you have promoted as fact, what is in reality no more than a hypothesis.

As Harris says in “Free-Will”: “A person's conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes — genes, childhood experience, etc….”

Were this to be promoted as a matter of strong influence, there would be no argument. Quite often a person will in fact be bound to certain behaviours until he becomes aware of the underlying causes and thereby able to exert conscious control to overcome them.
If these factors were not real and exerting a strong influence, particularly when they are unknown or unacknowledged, it would force a major review of theological matters. As it is, the findings to date underscore the theological position that the natural man is able only with difficulty to exercise freedom of will, and probably even then only with severe limitations. But there's a lot of distance between severely restricted and no freedom of will.

[shunyadragon]

You have declared that there is indisputably no such thing as free will, and have been doing so since pre-crash TWeb. The disclaimer you now have posted is therefore nothing more than an attempt to evade the admission that you have promoted as fact, what is in reality no more than a hypothesis.

Were this to be promoted as a matter of strong influence, there would be no argument. Quite often a person will in fact be bound to certain behaviours until he becomes aware of the underlying causes and thereby able to exert conscious control to overcome them.

There is a crack in the determinism wall pf Tass when he admitted the possibility of compatibilist free will. Determinism at present explains most of our willful acts, but fails beyond the simple decision making process of everyday life.

I do believe that by far most people do not exercise there 'potential free will' and for the most part of their life. I believe the evidence that decisions are pretty much shows that most decisions take place within a limited range depending on culture and beliefs and responses to events and circumstances in the world around us.

If these factors were not real and exerting a strong influence, particularly when they are unknown or unacknowledged, it would force a major review of theological matters. As it is, the findings to date underscore the theological position that the natural man is able only with difficulty to exercise freedom of will, and probably even then only with severe limitations. But there's a lot of distance between severely restricted and no freedom of will.

Actually, the influence of the possibility of Free Will is not totally unknown or unacknowledged. See reference I previously cited from Psychology today. There is a basis for some degree of limited free will in the evidence. I do not believe that theological matters consistently resolve the problem of free will, because there are too many conflicting theological views based on scripture from the necessity of 'libertarian free will' to strict determinism in beliefs like Calvinism.

[Tassman]

So Tass, you have no control over what you believe - true or not - correct?

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This, as opposed to Fatalism, with which you inevitably confuse with Determinism.

Conversely, IF, as you allege we have Libertarian Free-Will contrary to the available evidence you need to tell us when and how we acquired it?

Given that you claim God-did-it, WHEN did He do it: in the Garden of Eden. OR did He insert Free-Will at some point after we descended from the last common ancestor of humans, bonobos and chimpanzees? And WHY did our bonobo and chimp cousins miss out? OR do they in fact have autonomous Free-Will too? If not Why not?!

OR do we have the same illusion of free choice that the bonobos and chimps have, as per the above quote, which in actuality is not autonomous Free-Will at all but nevertheless is capable of making a difference?

You have yet to even make an attempt to answer these questions. Instead you invariably resort to your endlessly repeated simplistic parody of Causal Determinism.

He won't admit the logical conclusions of his position because he's an idiot.

You can tell him that p implies q all you like, but he'll still hold to p whilst denying q. Ad hominem arguments and other red herrings typically follow. He simply does not understand logic.

[Rational Gaze]

It is the argument Tass, the very argument I have been having with you. And I find it amazing that you won't admit to the logical conclusion of your position. Why is that?

He won't admit the logical conclusions of his position because he's an idiot. You can tell him that p implies q all you like, but he'll still hold to p whilst denying q. Ad hominem arguments and other red herrings typically follow. He simply does not understand logic.

[Tassman]

You have declared that there is indisputably no such thing as free will, and have been doing so since pre-crash TWeb. The disclaimer you now have posted is therefore nothing more than an attempt to evade the admission that you have promoted as fact, what is in reality no more than a hypothesis.

Were this to be promoted as a matter of strong influence, there would be no argument. Quite often a person will in fact be bound to certain behaviours until he becomes aware of the underlying causes and thereby able to exert conscious control to overcome them.

If these factors were not real and exerting a strong influence, particularly when they are unknown or unacknowledged, it would force a major review of theological matters. As it is, the findings to date underscore the theological position that the natural man is able only with difficulty to exercise freedom of will, and probably even then only with severe limitations. But there's a lot of distance between severely restricted and no freedom of will.

[seer]

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This, as opposed to Fatalism, with which you inevitably confuse with Determinism.

Tass, it was a simple question: Are you determined to believe what you believe - true or not? It is a yes or no.

[JimL]

Tass, it was a simple question: Are you determined to believe what you believe - true or not? It is a yes or no.

That is not a question that can be answered conclusively seer, so it is not a simple question. I think that the above comment from Tass makes that clear. Preceding causes make a difference. For example, if you were born to different parents, raised in a different environment, would you be the same person, making the same choices, believing the same things etc etc. that you are today? Highly unlikely. You will say that of course I wouldn't be the same person, but I would still be responsible for, and free to make, my own choices! True, so why then would you, the very same you, be a different person in each scenario? Preceding causes!

[Tassman]

Tass, it was a simple question: Are you determined to believe what you believe - true or not? It is a yes or no.

It cannot be a simple YOUWHEN?

Or are you going with the discredited Adam and Eve scenario c. 6,000 years ago? The last is a yes or no.