Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Practical Effects of Free Will

MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 3:57:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Self-explanatory. What are the practical effects of having/not having free will? Responsibility is one that is commonly brought up. I personally do not assess responsibility based on a free choice, but instead on a causal action, so free will seems somewhat irrelevant.

What effects does free will/not free will have on responsibility and other stuff?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:07:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not much. We as humans operate under the assumption that free will exists, and even if it doesn't, we should STILL operate under that assumption.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 4:23:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 4:07:43 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Not much. We as humans operate under the assumption that free will exists, and even if it doesn't, we should STILL operate under that assumption.
Keyword is bolded.

Prove it, please.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:35:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Okay.

Free will has been proven not to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine as a result?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:39:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:35:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Okay.

Free will has been proven not to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine as a result?

Nothing. But then again I don't believe in free will to begin with. It's like saying to me, "Young Earth Creation Theory has not been proven to be true. What changes are you going to make to your beliefs as a result?" - Absolutely nothing, because I didn't believe in it in the first place. This doesn't tell me why I should believe in YEC, nor does it tell me why I should believe in free will.

Now, where is your argument?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 5:59:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:39:13 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:35:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Okay.

Free will has been proven not to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine as a result?

Nothing. But then again I don't believe in free will to begin with. It's like saying to me, "Young Earth Creation Theory has not been proven to be true. What changes are you going to make to your beliefs as a result?" - Absolutely nothing, because I didn't believe in it in the first place. This doesn't tell me why I should believe in YEC, nor does it tell me why I should believe in free will.

Now, where is your argument?

Chill out Rez, I'm getting there :)

Okay, now hypothetically speaking, Free Will has been conclusively proven to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 6:08:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:59:55 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:39:13 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:35:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Okay.

Free will has been proven not to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine as a result?

Nothing. But then again I don't believe in free will to begin with. It's like saying to me, "Young Earth Creation Theory has not been proven to be true. What changes are you going to make to your beliefs as a result?" - Absolutely nothing, because I didn't believe in it in the first place. This doesn't tell me why I should believe in YEC, nor does it tell me why I should believe in free will.

Now, where is your argument?

Chill out Rez, I'm getting there :)

Okay, now hypothetically speaking, Free Will has been conclusively proven to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine?

I'd divert some of my time arguing anarchism/statism to arguing determinism/freewill. I don't believe free will is true and I'd need to see the arguments for it. But assuming what you meant by "conclusively proven to exist" means "believe to be true"...

- I'd stop trying to understand people because free will makes that impossible.
- I'd start blaming people a lot more as a result of the previous.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 6:08:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
But assuming what you meant by "conclusively proven to exist" means "believe to be true"...

Why would you assume that?

Examine your behavior right now.

Think about your behavior if there was perfect infallible evidence that free will does not exist (even if it were unchanged)

Think about your behavior if there was perfect infallible evidence that free will does exist.

We're not talking about belief, possibility, or probability, but 100% truth.

If your answer changes, reword it accordingly.

I'll dismiss the first part of what you said about arguing things, because we are assuming that it is inarguable fact. I'll move onto the second part.

You say that you would stop trying to understand people if free will objectively exists. I see no basis for this because it doesn't mean that all actions are random. It just means that they are up to the volition of the actor. If anything, it would make me want to understand people more, knowing that they act with reason but not a reason that is tied to empirical proof.

In addition, are you saying that you only attempt to understand people now because you are convinced that they do not act of their own free will? In that case, you aren't focused on understanding people. Rather, you are trying to understand a physical occurrence. I don't know about you, but for me, free will has nothing to do with how I interact with people.

As per the second point, you say you would blame people more. I don't see the logical connection at all. Do you really expect me to believe that right now, since you are convinced that free will does not exist, you actually relieve people of the responsibility of their actions because you think that the lack of free will somehow absolves them of things?

I personally don't believe either of the things you said, and I don't think you do either. My point is simply this:

People do not consciously run around and assume that their actions are determined. If they did that, they would be paranoid and angsty. I, like you, do not believe in free will. However, I am not as bold to say that the knowledge of this is somehow easy to live with. I live my life under the assumption that my actions are free and a result of my own choice, because that is the only way I can keep sane.

And this is probably the case for every human being on Earth.

The essence of my argument: Whether free will is proven 100%, or disproven 100%, it makes no difference whatsoever. There will be no change in daily routine, no change in ethics, no change in morality, philosophy, law, *anything*. The argument is completely moot.

There is no practical way to live your life differently going from a person that does believe in free will, to a person that does not believe in free will. There is no practical application.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 7:44:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 7:23:34 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/12/2009 6:08:07 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
But assuming what you meant by "conclusively proven to exist" means "believe to be true"...

Why would you assume that?
I wouldn't. I was simply saying that if I believed it was true, I would do those two behaviors. If it was "conclusively proven to exist" did NOT mean "I believe it to be true", then I'd be diverting some of my time from arguing anarchism/statism to determinism/freewill.

Examine your behavior right now.

Think about your behavior if there was perfect infallible evidence that free will does not exist (even if it were unchanged)
For a person who debates Godsands so much, you certainly sound like him.

Think about your behavior if there was perfect infallible evidence that free will does exist.

We're not talking about belief, possibility, or probability, but 100% truth.

If your answer changes, reword it accordingly.
My answer remains the same. I would debate, or at least discuss, to see what kind of conclusive evidence there is.

I'll dismiss the first part of what you said about arguing things, because we are assuming that it is inarguable fact. I'll move onto the second part.

You say that you would stop trying to understand people if free will objectively exists. I see no basis for this because it doesn't mean that all actions are random. It just means that they are up to the volition of the actor. If anything, it would make me want to understand people more, knowing that they act with reason but not a reason that is tied to empirical proof.
The volition of the actor is based on reasons, which are based on other reasons, which are based on other reasons, etc. This, to my understanding, is categorized under determinism.

In addition, are you saying that you only attempt to understand people now because you are convinced that they do not act of their own free will? In that case, you aren't focused on understanding people. Rather, you are trying to understand a physical occurrence. I don't know about you, but for me, free will has nothing to do with how I interact with people.
Indeed, free will has nothing to do with how I interact with people. I assume they are well intentioned and that they have reasons for every action they do (that seem reasonable to them), and I go from there. Hence, why I don't particularly care about the debate about free will vs determinism all that much. However if you asked me to choose between the two, I would pick determinism. If people base their choices on reasons, which are based on other reasons, which are based on other reasons etc, then they are akin to a machine.

As per the second point, you say you would blame people more. I don't see the logical connection at all. Do you really expect me to believe that right now, since you are convinced that free will does not exist, you actually relieve people of the responsibility of their actions because you think that the lack of free will somehow absolves them of things?
No, I don't expect you to believe that. But I believe that. Though we might want to define "responsibility" sometime. Sure, I get pissed at annoying and obnoxious people. I don't go, "oh, you're just a result of your experience, I'll accept you for who you are", no, it's not like that. *Because* I don't like how they are acting, and *because* I assume people are like machines, I ostracize them to the best of my ability to give incentive/reason to them to stop acting the way that they do. If this is equivalent to holding people responsible for their actions, sure, I hold them responsible for their actions. This topic seems pretty big on its own though, so let me know if you want to go more into it.

I personally don't believe either of the things you said, and I don't think you do either. My point is simply this:
No, I believe the things I say. I might not know their full extent or see them the way you do, but I believe, based on the extent of my knowledge, in what I answered above. There's a reason I don't participate in many debates: I consistently fail at presenting a point that I do not stand behind.

People do not consciously run around and assume that their actions are determined. If they did that, they would be paranoid and angsty. I, like you, do not believe in free will. However, I am not as bold to say that the knowledge of this is somehow easy to live with. I live my life under the assumption that my actions are free and a result of my own choice, because that is the only way I can keep sane.

And this is probably the case for every human being on Earth.
You know, once, I was paranoid and angsty when I tried believing in determinism, but now I'm like, meh, okay. So I'm a machine. I really don't mind. There are more oppressive ideas in my life than the perspective that I am a machine - parents, school, and government to name a few.

The essence of my argument: Whether free will is proven 100%, or disproven 100%, it makes no difference whatsoever. There will be no change in daily routine, no change in ethics, no change in morality, philosophy, law, *anything*. The argument is completely moot.

There is no practical way to live your life differently going from a person that does believe in free will, to a person that does not believe in free will. There is no practical application.
I think we stand on the same position actually, we just use vastly different words to describe the same thing. Just like how you say you're an agnostic while I say I'm an atheist, but our perspectives on religion are more or less the same.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 8:38:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Alright Rez, let me make this clear first. There were a lot of things I said that didn't fully go through, and the answers you gave made it clear that perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll first start by saying this:

I only seek to show two things:

1. Whether or not Free Will exists, nothing changes.
2. Whether or not Free Will exists, people will operate as if though it did.

What do I mean by "operating as if though they are free"? I mean that people won't take principles associated with Determinism and second-guess their actions. They will assume that each decision they make, is their own free choice, or at least, a non-issue.

Now, let's take a look at why we have some misunderstandings here.

The first part of my response is simple: I want to show that in a world where Free Will is the objective truth, and everyone believes in free will, and that free will rules all, that people will act in the manner of ABCDEFG.

The second part of my response is equally as simple. I want to show that in a world where it is KNOWN FACT that free will is a LIE, where objectively, there is no free will, and where no one believes in free will, that people will STILL act in the manner of ABCDEFG.

This is why I got confused by your assertion that your response would be "Well, then I'd argue it and try to see what arguments people have and etc." To me, this is complete nonsense. Whether or not you would argue against Free Will in a universe where Free Will objectively exists is irrelevant to your argument, and irrelevant to my argument.

All I seek to show is that the method of acting with, or without free will, is exactly the same.

Now, for the other section, I was commenting on your dual rebuttal of "ceasing to understand people" and "blaming them more".

What was I trying to show? You said:

If free will objectively exists,
You would stop trying to understand people, on the basis that people have reasons for their actions
And those actions trace back to determinism

You don't see anything wrong with this statement? You're so unwilling to even comprehend the possibility of free will existing, that you won't even let me use it as a hypothetical situation to illustrate my argument >.>

IF, in this hypothetical situation, free will exists, then obviously determinism wouldn't be an option. There would be some magical force inside a person's brain that allows them to make 100% free choices.

The next point, about blaming people. Your explanation was a good one, but why would that incentive mean anything if everything was determined? If free will did not exist, you shouldn't take offense to ANYTHING, should you? Because that's the way that things physically turn out, nobody can do a single thing to prevent it.

And then, you mention that you just sort of brush off the fact that free will doesn't exist. That's exactly what I mean. You don't live your daily life concerned with the issue of free will, because it doesn't have any effect. It is impossible to both fully grasp it and still remain sane. You're *ignoring* it. If you actually had to practice what you preach, you would go crazy within a week.

That's what I mean when I say that people must assume that free will exists. That's the main point of contention between us.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 9:22:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 8:38:55 PM, Kleptin wrote:
What was I trying to show? You said:

If free will objectively exists,
You would stop trying to understand people, on the basis that people have reasons for their actions
And those actions trace back to determinism

You don't see anything wrong with this statement? You're so unwilling to even comprehend the possibility of free will existing, that you won't even let me use it as a hypothetical situation to illustrate my argument >.>

Your failed accusation of projection only shows that you yourself are a projector.

You mashed up two different things. I was attempting to disprove free will like I do with religion: taking the assumption as true, and then showing it as a contradiction either in and of itself, or to other things.

If free will objectively exists, I would stop trying to understand people, because it'd mean no reasoning. However, people's actions are always based on some reason, and those reasons "trace back to determinism". If people have reasons for their actions, and those reasons have their own reasons etc., then the world is determinist, at least to my understanding of the word. And they always do.

The next point, about blaming people. Your explanation was a good one, but why would that incentive mean anything if everything was determined? If free will did not exist, you shouldn't take offense to ANYTHING, should you? Because that's the way that things physically turn out, nobody can do a single thing to prevent it.
I don't get it. Why does determinism necessitate that I don't take offense to anything? Just because I'm a machine and everyone else is a machine doesn't mean I can't dislike other machines and put up defenses against them. Why can't defensiveness against certain ideas or traits be part of the deterministic model as well? If I get malaria, my body's going to fight against it. It doesn't give a sh!t that the malaria didn't "choose" to invade my body, it'll employ my immune system to its fullest capacities.

And then, you mention that you just sort of brush off the fact that free will doesn't exist. That's exactly what I mean. You don't live your daily life concerned with the issue of free will, because it doesn't have any effect. It is impossible to both fully grasp it and still remain sane. You're *ignoring* it. If you actually had to practice what you preach, you would go crazy within a week.
How am I supposed to practice such a belief??? It's simply an observation of how things work. Asking me to practice it, or as I think you're saying, pay attention to it, isn't a necessary requirement for the truth or usefulness of a belief.

I believe the galaxy is a few hundred million light years across. If I tried to comprehend that distance, if I tried to practice what I preached, I would go crazy within a week.

I believe evolution happens over millions of years. If I tried to comprehend that timescale, if I tried to practice what I preached, I would go crazy within a week.

Yes, "practice what you preach" is a good measurer of consistency and truth. However, I do not think it applies in this circumstance. On top of that, just because I ignore determinism doesn't mean that suddenly, I am operating under a presumption that free will is true - this is a false dichotomy. I operate under the "assumption" that it really doesn't matter all that much whether we have free will or we don't: the issue, not the positions, are ignored altogether.

It is "irrelevant" if the galaxy is several million years across, I will live thinking about my own encounters with the area I live in. This does not mean that I suddenly believe the galaxy is not several million light years across, it simply means the truth of the galaxy's size is not an issue in my everyday life. I will certainly argue that the galaxy is several million light years across against people who believe that the night sky is just a sphere shaped backdrop by God, but just because I don't practice what I preach every day doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

It is "irrelevant" if species evolve over millions of years, I will live and assume that when two people f*ck, their baby will be a human. This does not mean that I suddenly believe that evolution is false and that today's human will be exactly like one from a million years later, it simply means the truth of evolution is not an issue in my everyday life. I will certainly argue evolution against creationists, but just because I don't practice what I preach every day doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

Your argument is not an argument against determinism,
nor is it an argument for free will.

I have yet to see why I should or have any reason to believe in free will.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 9:52:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Free will flatly contradicts the concept of cause-and-effect, and therefore logic, so a world with free will would have no order or pattern, just random static like on a TV screen. Verily it would be the same way with mysticism of any sort.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 9:54:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 9:22:24 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You mashed up two different things. I was attempting to disprove free will like I do with religion: taking the assumption as true, and then showing it as a contradiction either in and of itself, or to other things.

And that's exactly what's wrong. I'm not trying to prove free will, but you're rebutting as if though I were.

If free will objectively exists, I would stop trying to understand people, because it'd mean no reasoning. However, people's actions are always based on some reason, and those reasons "trace back to determinism". If people have reasons for their actions, and those reasons have their own reasons etc., then the world is determinist, at least to my understanding of the word. And they always do.

And that's very nice. But I'm not concerned with whether or not this is the case. I'm concerned with showing that there are no practical effects of free will. Not whether or not free will exists.

The next point, about blaming people. Your explanation was a good one, but why would that incentive mean anything if everything was determined? If free will did not exist, you shouldn't take offense to ANYTHING, should you? Because that's the way that things physically turn out, nobody can do a single thing to prevent it.

I don't get it. Why does determinism necessitate that I don't take offense to anything? Just because I'm a machine and everyone else is a machine doesn't mean I can't dislike other machines and put up defenses against them. Why can't defensiveness against certain ideas or traits be part of the deterministic model as well? If I get malaria, my body's going to fight against it. It doesn't give a sh!t that the malaria didn't "choose" to invade my body, it'll employ my immune system to its fullest capacities.

Forget I said anything. This one was my mistake, as I delved into an irrelevant side note. Under the deterministic model, you're right.

How am I supposed to practice such a belief??? It's simply an observation of how things work. Asking me to practice it, or as I think you're saying, pay attention to it, isn't a necessary requirement for the truth or usefulness of a belief.

I believe the galaxy is a few hundred million light years across. If I tried to comprehend that distance, if I tried to practice what I preached, I would go crazy within a week.

I believe evolution happens over millions of years. If I tried to comprehend that timescale, if I tried to practice what I preached, I would go crazy within a week.

Yes, "practice what you preach" is a good measurer of consistency and truth. However, I do not think it applies in this circumstance. On top of that, just because I ignore determinism doesn't mean that suddenly, I am operating under a presumption that free will is true - this is a false dichotomy. I operate under the "assumption" that it really doesn't matter all that much whether we have free will or we don't: the issue, not the positions, are ignored altogether.

It is "irrelevant" if the galaxy is several million years across, I will live thinking about my own encounters with the area I live in. This does not mean that I suddenly believe the galaxy is not several million light years across, it simply means the truth of the galaxy's size is not an issue in my everyday life. I will certainly argue that the galaxy is several million light years across against people who believe that the night sky is just a sphere shaped backdrop by God, but just because I don't practice what I preach every day doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

It is "irrelevant" if species evolve over millions of years, I will live and assume that when two people f*ck, their baby will be a human. This does not mean that I suddenly believe that evolution is false and that today's human will be exactly like one from a million years later, it simply means the truth of evolution is not an issue in my everyday life. I will certainly argue evolution against creationists, but just because I don't practice what I preach every day doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

No, that's exactly my point. Like I said a dozen times, I'm trying to show that there is no practicality to the free will argument. I'm trying to show that whatever it is that you believe, has no application whatsoever.

Your argument is not an argument against determinism,
nor is it an argument for free will.

I have yet to see why I should or have any reason to believe in free will.

Are you high? Take a look at the topic description. My argument is not an argument for determinism because it's an argument against the practicality of the free will argument. My argument is not an argument for free will because it's an argument against the practicality of the free will argument.

You have yet to see why you should or have any reason to believe in free will because no arguments were proposed for it, no arguments will be proposed for it, and no arguments should be proposed for it, because this topic is not about proposing arguments FOR or AGAINST free will. This topic is about the "Practical Effects of Free Will".
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2009 10:09:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 9:54:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/12/2009 9:22:24 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
How am I supposed to practice such a belief??? It's simply an observation of how things work. Asking me to practice it, or as I think you're saying, pay attention to it, isn't a necessary requirement for the truth or usefulness of a belief.

I believe the galaxy is a few hundred million light years across. If I tried to comprehend that distance, if I tried to practice what I preached, I would go crazy within a week.

I believe evolution happens over millions of years. If I tried to comprehend that timescale, if I tried to practice what I preached, I would go crazy within a week.

Yes, "practice what you preach" is a good measurer of consistency and truth. However, I do not think it applies in this circumstance. On top of that, just because I ignore determinism doesn't mean that suddenly, I am operating under a presumption that free will is true - this is a false dichotomy. I operate under the "assumption" that it really doesn't matter all that much whether we have free will or we don't: the issue, not the positions, are ignored altogether.

It is "irrelevant" if the galaxy is several million years across, I will live thinking about my own encounters with the area I live in. This does not mean that I suddenly believe the galaxy is not several million light years across, it simply means the truth of the galaxy's size is not an issue in my everyday life. I will certainly argue that the galaxy is several million light years across against people who believe that the night sky is just a sphere shaped backdrop by God, but just because I don't practice what I preach every day doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

It is "irrelevant" if species evolve over millions of years, I will live and assume that when two people f*ck, their baby will be a human. This does not mean that I suddenly believe that evolution is false and that today's human will be exactly like one from a million years later, it simply means the truth of evolution is not an issue in my everyday life. I will certainly argue evolution against creationists, but just because I don't practice what I preach every day doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

No, that's exactly my point. Like I said a dozen times, I'm trying to show that there is no practicality to the free will argument. I'm trying to show that whatever it is that you believe, has no application whatsoever.

>>>
At 9/12/2009 4:07:43 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Not much. We as humans operate under the assumption that free will exists, and even if it doesn't, we should STILL operate under that assumption.
>>>
Keyword: should

To my understanding, your point is that there is practicality in believing in free will. I do not see you making this argument other than from the standpoint of "determinism is not applicable", saying that because determinism isn't, therefore free will is.

Your argument is not an argument against determinism,
nor is it an argument for free will.

I have yet to see why I should or have any reason to believe in free will.

Are you high? Take a look at the topic description. My argument is not an argument for determinism because it's an argument against the practicality of the free will argument. My argument is not an argument for free will because it's an argument against the practicality of the free will argument.
Your argument is against the practicality of free will.... okay, so where is it? My conclusion/argument is that, either way, the issue in total is impractical. Your first post on this thread that I quoted there said that people should believe in free will, and since you're a fan of being on topic, they should believe it because it's practical. You have given warrants and I have refuted them, and I await a response. But now you say your argument is against free will???

You have yet to see why you should or have any reason to believe in free will because no arguments were proposed for it, no arguments will be proposed for it, and no arguments should be proposed for it, because this topic is not about proposing arguments FOR or AGAINST free will. This topic is about the "Practical Effects of Free Will".
I do not particularly care about the topic name, I only pay attention to where the discussion goes. You posted that people should believe in free will. I need to see your argument. Yes, I have been overlooking some of your posts - namely a part of your second post:

The essence of my argument: Whether free will is proven 100%, or disproven 100%, it makes no difference whatsoever. There will be no change in daily routine, no change in ethics, no change in morality, philosophy, law, *anything*. The argument is completely moot.

Though later you also posted

And then, you mention that you just sort of brush off the fact that free will doesn't exist. That's exactly what I mean. You don't live your daily life concerned with the issue of free will, because it doesn't have any effect. It is impossible to both fully grasp it and still remain sane. You're *ignoring* it. If you actually had to practice what you preach, you would go crazy within a week.

That's what I mean when I say that people must assume that free will exists.

I have shown that I don't have to accept that free will exists to stay sane, which is what you argued in your first post at the top of the second page. I responded accordingly, showing that believing in free will is not a necessity, that the entire issue is not something people think about anyways.

Now I find that you have agreed that neither free will nor determinism is applicable.

My assumption thus far for all my posts was that you were going to show me why people should believe in free will. Now, I have no clue what you're going on.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:06:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ahhh, I see.

Yes, the second part of my statement was that people indeed assume free will exists when they go about their day-to-day lives.

Right now, people do assume that their choices are free, or at least ignore the possibility that some restriction exists. That's the key to the matter. Are my choices being restricted? The answer is "no, not in any practical way".

This is the illusion of free will, and everyone participates in it, even Determinists such as yourself.

Like you said, there is no practical application to Determinism, even if it was proven to be 100% true. I agreed, saying that any attempt to change one's life upon the discovery that your actions are indeed, determined, would result in insanity. It is the ATTEMPT to do so that would drive someone insane. What do I mean by the attempt? It is human nature, upon discovering a restriction, to overcome the restriction. This is one that is impossible to overcome.

Thus, whether you argue for the existence of free will, or for determinism, it doesn't matter. There is no practical application, and you assume that there IS no practical restriction on your being.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:35:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Definition of "illusion of free will":
[P]eople [...] assume that their choices are free, or at least ignore the possibility that some restriction exists. [...] Are my choices being restricted? The answer is "no, not in any practical way".
Hummmm............ I get the concept now, but I'm not sure I'd support its wording.

To me, saying that one should believe in free will even if determinism is true is like saying that one should believe that the earth is the only place in the universe because we can't really go into the infinite amounts of space, or that one should believe that it's impossible to become a billionaire because one can't really earn the effectively infinite amount of money in their lifetime, or that one should believe that it's impossible to modify one's computer because one can't make each of the infinite amount of possible modifications.

Sure, you can say that "I use my computer everyday assuming it can't be modified", or that "I assume I'll never get a billion dollars", or "I assume I can never get off Earth", but I think it's dishonest to say that since my true beliefs are not particularly applicable at every point in time, that I am, and should be, believing in their polar opposites simply because they are "applicable".

I wouldn't file this "illusion of free will" under free will. As I said earlier, it works better for me if I think of it as a non-issue.

But that's just nitpicking.

Maybe.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:46:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 5:35:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Okay.

Free will has been proven not to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine as a result?

I don't accept that it has been proven not to exist, free will is one of the few things I am willing to take on faith.

But no it wouldn't change anything either way.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:47:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 8:35:22 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
the earth is the only place in the universe because we can't really go into the infinite amounts of space

it's impossible to become a billionaire because one can't really earn the effectively infinite amount of money in their lifetime

it's impossible to modify one's computer because one can't make each of the infinite amount of possible modifications.

None of the three things listed here are impossible, but it is , by definition, impossible to overcome the restriction of determinism, if it exists. This is the key difference between this issue and what you listed. It is impossible by definition.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:49:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 8:46:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/12/2009 5:35:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Okay.

Free will has been proven not to exist. What changes are you going to make to your daily routine as a result?

I don't accept that it has been proven not to exist, free will is one of the few things I am willing to take on faith.

But no it wouldn't change anything either way.

You need to read things ><

This discussion has gone on for several pages because Rezz misinterpreted exactly what you did. I was setting up an argument using a hypothetical universe, not stating a truth <.<
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:56:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 8:47:52 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/13/2009 8:35:22 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
the earth is the only place in the universe because we can't really go into the infinite amounts of space

it's impossible to become a billionaire because one can't really earn the effectively infinite amount of money in their lifetime

it's impossible to modify one's computer because one can't make each of the infinite amount of possible modifications.

None of the three things listed here are impossible, but it is , by definition, impossible to overcome the restriction of determinism, if it exists. This is the key difference between this issue and what you listed. It is impossible by definition.

When we are discussing practicality, the fact that the things I listed are of a different type of impossible than determinism's type of impossible doesn't really mean anything. There is effectively impossible, and then there is definitionally impossible. All definitionally impossibles are effectively impossible, and whether or not something is effectively impossible is what we are looking at when we are discussing practicality.

The fact that it is definitionally impossible to overcome determinism's restrictions is irrelevant in the perspective of practicality. Perhaps it is not definitionally impossible for me to get to Alpha Centuri to see what another star system looks like up close, but effectively, it is impossible, and it holds the same weight as determinism. To say that I should believe in free will is the same, effectively, as saying I should believe I can never get off planet Earth.

Which is perfectly fine, if you want to make that argument. It'd be consistent.

But I don't buy any of it. Though as I've said, it might simply be word preference.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 7:44:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 8:56:29 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/13/2009 8:47:52 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/13/2009 8:35:22 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
the earth is the only place in the universe because we can't really go into the infinite amounts of space

it's impossible to become a billionaire because one can't really earn the effectively infinite amount of money in their lifetime

it's impossible to modify one's computer because one can't make each of the infinite amount of possible modifications.

None of the three things listed here are impossible, but it is , by definition, impossible to overcome the restriction of determinism, if it exists. This is the key difference between this issue and what you listed. It is impossible by definition.

When we are discussing practicality, the fact that the things I listed are of a different type of impossible than determinism's type of impossible doesn't really mean anything. There is effectively impossible, and then there is definitionally impossible. All definitionally impossibles are effectively impossible, and whether or not something is effectively impossible is what we are looking at when we are discussing practicality.

The fact that it is definitionally impossible to overcome determinism's restrictions is irrelevant in the perspective of practicality. Perhaps it is not definitionally impossible for me to get to Alpha Centuri to see what another star system looks like up close, but effectively, it is impossible, and it holds the same weight as determinism. To say that I should believe in free will is the same, effectively, as saying I should believe I can never get off planet Earth.

Which is perfectly fine, if you want to make that argument. It'd be consistent.

But I don't buy any of it. Though as I've said, it might simply be word preference.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

As far as I know, Impossible = Impossible. Anything that isn't impossible is possible. There is nothing between the two. Just like existence. Either something exists, or it does not exist.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:02:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Alright, let's go with something within your understanding then (not trying to condescend or anything, but that's the best way I can word it)

I am going to die.
It is definitionally impossible for me to be immortal.

Do you posit that I should believe that I am immortal, in order to stop myself from trying to break through that impossibility?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:17:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 8:02:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Alright, let's go with something within your understanding then (not trying to condescend or anything, but that's the best way I can word it)

I am going to die.
It is definitionally impossible for me to be immortal.

Do you posit that I should believe that I am immortal, in order to stop myself from trying to break through that impossibility?

The problem with that analogy is that the restriction imposed by mortality only occurs at the end of life. We are talking about the practicality of a permanently looming restriction of all aspects of day-to-day life, not just one that limits it at the end.

Let's try this one:

Suppose we are in the Matrix. Let us assume that it is an impossibility to escape.

Knowing that we are in the Matrix, should we keep thinking about the fact that we are in the Matrix, or should we carry on with day-to-day life as if though we were not in the Matrix and what was reality was indeed, reality?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2009 8:32:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/13/2009 8:17:01 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Let's try this one:

Suppose we are in the Matrix. Let us assume that it is an impossibility to escape.

Knowing that we are in the Matrix, should we keep thinking about the fact that we are in the Matrix, or should we carry on with day-to-day life as if though we were not in the Matrix and what was reality was indeed, reality?

To be honest, my first reaction was to carry on as if we were not in the matrix, but then remembered that you said "Knowing that we are in the Matrix". At that point I switched sides - if I carry on with my day to day life believing that I am in the Matrix, I will know to no longer hack into computers, or doing this or that action, because I'll get hauled away by Mr. Smith and his goons. In the same way, I carry on with my real day to day life believing that things are deterministic, so I have some basis for understanding others and how they work. If people are consistent (and they are), then unless magic exists, free will cannot also exist. And even if magic exists, it gives the appearance of the reasoned logic and consistency found in a determinist system, making it unnecessary to assume that magic exists.

In that way, believing in the Matrix and believing in determinism has its applicability.

If it was truly impossible and I realized that I couldn't get out of the Matrix, I'd probably go "meh, whatever" at some point. I just realized that this is more or less my current position on determinism. Sure, I could still try to break through it. But I already know more or less that I'll get really angry or really depressed. If this giving up to you means that I am buying into the illusion of free will or the illusion that I am not in the Matrix, that is fine.

But I don't think it's the same thing.

ONCE YOU TAKE THE RED PILL YOU CAN NEVER GO BACK
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 5:01:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
We must operate under the assumption that free will exists because otherwise there would be no basis for things like our legal system. If none of my choices belonged to me and were instead made by some outside force, it would hardly be justice to punish me for them since I had no part in deciding my actions.

That is why we must operate under the assumption that we have free will, it is necessary for an ordered society.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 5:02:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/12/2009 3:57:36 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Self-explanatory. What are the practical effects of having/not having free will? Responsibility is one that is commonly brought up. I personally do not assess responsibility based on a free choice, but instead on a causal action, so free will seems somewhat irrelevant.

What effects does free will/not free will have on responsibility and other stuff?

I cannot understand how anyone can argue that we do not have free will..

That we do.. means at some point we have to control ourselves.
This is done for us predominantly through parents, schooling, policing etc..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 5:59:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I cannot understand how anyone can argue that we do not have free will..

When you begin to leave the realm of pragmatism, logic, and reason and venture into discussing the mythical and supernatural you are led to things like all powerful beings that are not constrained by the natural laws of the universe. This leads to the idea that there might be supernatural beings that can read people's minds or control people's destinies. Once you start discussing hypothetical possibilities such as these, you have lost all basis in reality and can interject any possibilities, no matter how silly or imaginary.

This is why people can argue we do not have free will... for the same reason people can argue there is an invisible wizard out there somewhere who may or may not help you according to "his will" if you attempt to telepathically communicate with him. You can't prove them wrong, just point out that there is no reason to suppose they are right.


That we do.. means at some point we have to control ourselves.
This is done for us predominantly through parents, schooling, policing etc..
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 8:14:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/14/2009 5:59:25 AM, Floid wrote:
I cannot understand how anyone can argue that we do not have free will..

When you begin to leave the realm of pragmatism, logic, and reason and venture into discussing the mythical and supernatural you are led to things like all powerful beings that are not constrained by the natural laws of the universe. This leads to the idea that there might be supernatural beings that can read people's minds or control people's destinies. Once you start discussing hypothetical possibilities such as these, you have lost all basis in reality and can interject any possibilities, no matter how silly or imaginary.

This is why people can argue we do not have free will... for the same reason people can argue there is an invisible wizard out there somewhere who may or may not help you according to "his will" if you attempt to telepathically communicate with him. You can't prove them wrong, just point out that there is no reason to suppose they are right.

If I am reading you correctly you are mocking my Christian position whilst I am arguing for free-will. Nonsense.

That we do.. means at some point we have to control ourselves.
This is done for us predominantly through parents, schooling, policing etc..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2009 9:22:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If I am reading you correctly you are mocking my Christian position whilst I am arguing for free-will.

No, I am mocking your ability to cling to one irrational position while suggesting that you can not conceive how someone else can hold another position that is more rational than your own.