GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:I remain unconvinced. My feeling here is that if free will is being rigorously kept out of the discussion, then the concepts of responsibility, blame and punishment need to be kept out as well, because all of those concepts imply at least some form of free will. To say that there is no free will whatsoever but people can still be blamed, held responsible and punished strikes me as an unacceptable fudge....

What did you make of the medical analogy in a video posted earlier? It seems apt to me. If we identify anti-social behaviour we are perfectly justified in quarantining the person to protect others or taking steps to modify that behaviour, by inducement, education or punishment. These are simply more causal strands that have effects.

I’m not happy with the medical analogy, I think it can very easily be taken too far, for 2 reasons off the top of my head.

1. It implies that the state is what is important, that the people in it are to be regarded as being like parts of a body, components which may or may not be functioning OK, and which can be dispensed with if they are not (like a diseased kidney). In democracies at least, it’s usually taken to be the other way around: the state is there as a structure which helps the people in it to thrive, the people are in the end what matter. Getting people to put the state first is apt to lead to powerful elites disregarding human rights.

2. There’s an implication that anyone who breaks a rule has something wrong with them that needs to be fixed. This is very dodgy, the majority of rule-breakers are not crazed psychopaths, most normal people engage in a certain amount of low-level rule-breaking, often this can be an indicator of which rules need to be changed. Should Corbyn have been “fixed” for disobeying 3-line whips, or regarded as an individual with integrity? I appreciate that disobeying whips isn’t illegal, but a similar principle can hold where people break laws which they regard as wrong. The medical analogy leaves no obvious place for principled rule-breaking; again, it feels to me like a convenient tool for dictatorships.

zoon wrote:

archibald wrote:

zoon wrote:
You are saying that the practices of criminal justice can be justified entirely in utilitarian terms, of deterrence and sequestration (keeping dangerous people locked up), without bringing in any form of free will. This may be the case, I do see that plenty of people such as Jerry Coyne are arguing for it, I remain unconvinced. My feeling here is that if free will is being rigorously kept out of the discussion, then the concepts of responsibility, blame and punishment need to be kept out as well, because all of those concepts imply at least some form of free will.

No they don't.

To take “blame”: if all of a person’s actions are determined, they have no free will, then on what grounds should that person be blamed for those actions? To assign blame to a person is to say that they could (and should) have done otherwise. If you are insisting that the term “free will” has too much woo baggage to be kept, then the same goes for “blame”. You may be advocating similar practices to those currently in use, but if you are trying to keep out all implications of woo, then the term “blame” needs to be replaced along with “free will”.

"blame" is all about influencing people's behaviour, so of course we can blame people for misdeeds, to influence future behaviour. It's another string that can be pulled.
Why, exactly, do you think blame must be discarded?

zoon wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:I remain unconvinced. .....(snipped only to save space).....The medical analogy leaves no obvious place for principled rule-breaking; again, it feels to me like a convenient tool for dictatorships.

More doom-mongering.

There is no reason to suppose that what is essentially a more understanding and more just response to lawbreaking would result in any of that, any more than it might already be likely.

zoon wrote:

archibald wrote:

zoon wrote:
You are saying that the practices of criminal justice can be justified entirely in utilitarian terms, of deterrence and sequestration (keeping dangerous people locked up), without bringing in any form of free will. This may be the case, I do see that plenty of people such as Jerry Coyne are arguing for it, I remain unconvinced. My feeling here is that if free will is being rigorously kept out of the discussion, then the concepts of responsibility, blame and punishment need to be kept out as well, because all of those concepts imply at least some form of free will.

No they don't.

To take “blame”: if all of a person’s actions are determined, they have no free will, then on what grounds should that person be blamed for those actions? To assign blame to a person is to say that they could (and should) have done otherwise. If you are insisting that the term “free will” has too much woo baggage to be kept, then the same goes for “blame”. You may be advocating similar practices to those currently in use, but if you are trying to keep out all implications of woo, then the term “blame” needs to be replaced along with “free will”.

Ffs, read what's in my posts, would you? I already answered and no, there is no implication that they could have done otherwise in the scenario in which they did what they did. That's just you, boneheadedly insisting on it, or insisting that free will is still being brought in by the back door, or some other thing that you personally are insisting on.

And yes, I already said that I am not fond of the word 'blame'. Whether we absolutely must replace it or not is another matter. Ideally, yes, but at the same time, it may die away in due course, just as words tend to if they become redundant or less used. Or the understood meaning may change.

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:Why, exactly, do you think blame must be discarded?

Personally, I do think that our everyday language is steeped in woo, by which I mean false beliefs, and if (as is my position during this discussion) there is no free will then I do think the word 'blame' along with probably hundreds of other words, has baggage.

That said, I don't think we are on a mission to re-write dictionaries by next week.

Zoon, your case is really no better than the argument that atheism will lead to all sorts of nasty things. Look at atheist dictators.



Boo. Hiss. We need to go to church!

zoon wrote:The medical analogy leaves no obvious place for principled rule-breaking; again, it feels to me like a convenient tool for dictatorships.

Yes, well, this is all from a particular perspective with particular assumptions. I think you'd better denote 'justified' rule-breaking, unless you subscribe to some absolute morality. What do you have hidden in there, zoon? Religion?

And zoon, if you feel you are being misrepresented, perhaps ask yourself why those of us here who are perhaps more afreewill than others (romansh, Graham, Cito and myself) seem to think that you are coming across like the bishop's wife somewhat.

Why would rules not be changed in a hypothetical utilitarian atheist afreewill society?

romansh wrote:

archibald wrote:
I thought his very last point was interesting, when he said that one reason a belief in free will may have evolved was to give us more motivation to act. This seems slightly at odds with his earlier point when dismissing concerns that a lack of belief in free will will reduce the number of reasons for getting out of bed in the morning.

I missed that contradiction. But as you say ... slight.

Maybe slight, maybe not so slight.

If he was right at the last........

But of course it is not really a full contradiction to say both things (that a belief in free will has evolved to motivate us and that losing it will not have an adverse effect on that, because we may still be motivated, perhaps in other ways and/or for other reasons) but it's quite close.

I think it's worth taking seriously. Personally, unlike, say, zoon, I wouldn't be fearful, but I could be wrong. The main reason I wouldn't be fearful is that these things, if they change, tend to change gradually and in a patchwork fashion, allowing time for readjustments.

At the end of the day however, as I keep saying, keeping it under wraps just in case of society imploding is (a) pessimistic and (b) pointless, if the case for free will continues to weaken.

One more thing, I do think that the (imo probably but not certainly) mistaken/false belief in free will is more deeply embedded than the (imo probably but not certainly) mistaken/false belief in god. This may not be the case, it may just be the way I'm seeing it.

It seems as if, even after becoming afreewill, individuals still have to 'live in the illusion' (if that's what it is) which does not seem to be the case, to anywhere near the same extent, for belief in god.

It's easy to accommodate and even embrace the idea (I do that, as does Jerry Coyne) in a sort of doublethink way, and even (as in your case) to try to live as if one didn't have free will. More than that....difficult I think. But perhaps this will gradually become easier. Whether it will ever become completely possible, I don't know.

But of course this is a secondary issue to whether there is free will and a secondary question to whether we should accommodate, acknowledge and embrace it. We should, imo, do these things if it becomes clearer that it is the case. To do otherwise would be dishonest. In this sense, the 'bishop's wife' response is not attractive to me.

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:........

Why, exactly, do you think blame must be discarded?

Personally, I do think that our everyday language is steeped in woo, by which I mean false beliefs, and if (as is my position during this discussion) there is no free will then I do think the word 'blame' along with probably hundreds of other words, has baggage.

That said, I don't think we are on a mission to re-write dictionaries by next week.

I’m happy to go along with the view that all or most of the terminology around free will and moral responsibility has quantities of baggage. I’m also happy to agree that the process of redefining the terms is happening gradually anyway, and that helping this process along is probably a better move than insisting on rewriting the dictionary.

I think my main difference from you and GrahamH is that I’m not taking such a hard line about the term “free will” as you are. You two seem to be saying that we can wait for terms like “blame” and “responsibility” to acquire their new meanings and implications as the scientific view becomes more widespread, but “free will” is, in your view, an irredeemable term, anybody using it must be referring to the woo concept of ultimate freedom from physical laws, it has to go in the dustbin along with the concept of god.

I am taking a more relaxed line about “free will”, I am treating it more as you are treating “blame” and “responsibility”. It seems to me that when “free will” is used, for example, in the context of freedom from coercion by another person, then it’s not at all necessarily about freedom from the laws of physics. As far as I can tell, romansch is inclined to this view as well, that “free will” already has a range of meanings, not all of them woo. I hope I’m not misrepresenting romansch here by quoting post #6803:

romansh wrote:………………….

Regarding the discussion you are having with Zoon on "social" free will. Quite often someone might say somebody did something under their own free will. This generally means they were not coerced by another person or some obvious circumstance. While I would avoid the phrase I must admit I am not overly fussed by it either.

zoon wrote:

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:........

Why, exactly, do you think blame must be discarded?

Personally, I do think that our everyday language is steeped in woo, by which I mean false beliefs, and if (as is my position during this discussion) there is no free will then I do think the word 'blame' along with probably hundreds of other words, has baggage.

That said, I don't think we are on a mission to re-write dictionaries by next week.

I’m happy to go along with the view that all or most of the terminology around free will and moral responsibility has quantities of baggage. I’m also happy to agree that the process of redefining the terms is happening gradually anyway, and that helping this process along is probably a better move than insisting on rewriting the dictionary.

I think my main difference from you and GrahamH is that I’m not taking such a hard line about the term “free will” as you are. You two seem to be saying that we can wait for terms like “blame” and “responsibility” to acquire their new meanings and implications as the scientific view becomes more widespread, but “free will” is, in your view, an irredeemable term, anybody using it must be referring to the woo concept of ultimate freedom from physical laws, it has to go in the dustbin along with the concept of god.

That is not my position. The term free will is not at all precise and metaphysically it's in the bin along with god, but it's a serviceable term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way. e. without explicit coercion. I't works as a synonym for "voluntary" without worrying about the details.

zoon wrote:[I am taking a more relaxed line about “free will”, I am treating it more as you are treating “blame” and “responsibility”. It seems to me that when “free will” is used, for example, in the context of freedom from coercion by another person, then it’s not at all necessarily about freedom from the laws of physics. As far as I can tell, Romansch is inclined to this view as well, that “free will” already has a range of meanings, I hope I’m not misrepresenting Romansch here by quoting post #6803:

romansh wrote:………………….

Regarding the discussion you are having with Zoon on "social" free will. Quite often someone might say somebody did something under their own free will. This generally means they were not coerced by another person or some obvious circumstance. While I would avoid the phrase I must admit I am not overly fussed by it either.

I'm fine with that. My attitude to "blame"/"responsibility" is more like your attitude to "free will".

I suppose my main issue is with claims that we obviously have free will, or that we must assume it or with really muddy definitions that skirt the contentious issues.

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:

archibald wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Why, exactly, do you think blame must be discarded?

Personally, I do think that our everyday language is steeped in woo, by which I mean false beliefs, and if (as is my position during this discussion) there is no free will then I do think the word 'blame' along with probably hundreds of other words, has baggage.

That said, I don't think we are on a mission to re-write dictionaries by next week.

I’m happy to go along with the view that all or most of the terminology around free will and moral responsibility has quantities of baggage. I’m also happy to agree that the process of redefining the terms is happening gradually anyway, and that helping this process along is probably a better move than insisting on rewriting the dictionary.

I think my main difference from you and GrahamH is that I’m not taking such a hard line about the term “free will” as you are. You two seem to be saying that we can wait for terms like “blame” and “responsibility” to acquire their new meanings and implications as the scientific view becomes more widespread, but “free will” is, in your view, an irredeemable term, anybody using it must be referring to the woo concept of ultimate freedom from physical laws, it has to go in the dustbin along with the concept of god.

That is not my position. The term free will is not at all precise and metaphysically it's in the bin along with god, but it's a serviceable term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way. e. without explicit coercion. I't works as a synonym for "voluntary" without worrying about the details.

zoon wrote:[I am taking a more relaxed line about “free will”, I am treating it more as you are treating “blame” and “responsibility”. It seems to me that when “free will” is used, for example, in the context of freedom from coercion by another person, then it’s not at all necessarily about freedom from the laws of physics. As far as I can tell, Romansch is inclined to this view as well, that “free will” already has a range of meanings, I hope I’m not misrepresenting Romansch here by quoting post #6803:

romansh wrote:………………….

Regarding the discussion you are having with Zoon on "social" free will. Quite often someone might say somebody did something under their own free will. This generally means they were not coerced by another person or some obvious circumstance. While I would avoid the phrase I must admit I am not overly fussed by it either.

I'm fine with that. My attitude to "blame"/"responsibility" is more like your attitude to "free will".

I suppose my main issue is with claims that we obviously have free will, or that we must assume it or with really muddy definitions that skirt the contentious issues.

I certainly agree strongly with you when you say that “the term free will is not at all precise”. I’m also in agreement with you that one of its uses is as “a serviceable term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way. e. without explicit coercion. It works as a synonym for "voluntary" without worrying about the details.” Where I’m querying you, is when you say without qualification that “metaphysically it's in the bin along with god”. Certainly, when free will is used to refer to freedom from the laws of physics, the bin is indeed where it belongs, but when it’s being used as a “term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way”, then it seems to me that there’s no obvious metaphysical problem? – we can be ignorant of what underlies our choices without denying determinism.

I think my main contention in this part of the thread is that the usage of free will which you describe above, namely: “a serviceable term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way, i.e. without explicit coercion” is in fact a common usage, it’s the one which comes up in law courts. As you also say, it’s all very muddy, most people who use it in law courts probably do believe in freedom from determinism, my point is that it’s a standard legal term which would retain its usefulness without that metaphysical disaster. To insist that it needs to go (as I think archibald is insisting, though I seem to have misrepresented you), is, in my view, to insist on rewriting the dictionary unnecessarily, we can wait for “free will” to lose the woo baggage (along with “blame” and “responsibility”) as neuroscience comes into public acceptance.

Zoon clearly believes in perpetual motion too

zoon wrote: Where I’m querying you, is when you say without qualification that “metaphysically it's in the bin along with god”. Certainly, when free will is used to refer to freedom from the laws of physics, the bin is indeed where it belongs, but when it’s being used as a “term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way”, then it seems to me that there’s no obvious metaphysical problem?

Huh? DOes that have any metaphysical implications? I think not, hence the metaphysics is in the bin, irrelevant, of no concern.

zoon wrote: – we can be ignorant of what underlies our choices without denying determinism.

Of course.

zoon wrote: I think my main contention in this part of the thread is that the usage of free will which you describe above, namely: “a serviceable term for choosing without being aware of exactly why you are choosing that way, i.e. without explicit coercion” is in fact a common usage, it’s the one which comes up in law courts. As you also say, it’s all very muddy, most people who use it in law courts probably do believe in freedom from determinism, my point is that it’s a standard legal term which would retain its usefulness without that metaphysical disaster.[/uote]

That's what I just wrote, isn't it?

zoon wrote: To insist that it needs to go (as I think archibald is insisting, though I seem to have misrepresented you), is, in my view, to insist on rewriting the dictionary unnecessarily, we can wait for “free will” to lose the woo baggage (along with “blame” and “responsibility”) as neuroscience comes into public acceptance.

I'm not insisting anything "needs to go". I don't think the topic has any great relevance to daily life. Whether we have it or not the world looks just the same, people will treat each other just the same and nobody needs to assume free will. If humans come to better understand what makes us tick such notions may fall out of use and the society may move more to addressing causes of behaviour rather than just blaming the person as sole agent. I should think that would be a gradual process. It might be spurred on by legal issues around AI entities.

Let's be straight about one thing. Legal systems are going to resist the notion of determinism and try to retain their historical assumption about free will until there is clearer evidence for the former. This may be the way things are headed, but we're not there yet. So, in that sense, any discussion of possible future scenarios in an afreewill society is hypothetical.

One reason I would be more in favour of embracing overt change in the interim than, say, zoon, is that clinging on to procedures and terminologies which neither of us think reflect the true state of affairs could easily be confusing and an impediment to changes which might lead to a better system than the current one. My view is this is not helped when zoon's hesitancy appears to be fuelled by personal worries (shared by the bishop's wife) which are a bit of a knee-jerk 'fear of change' which hasn't yet even been argued for or against in any objective terms.

The way I see it, if and when determinism becomes accepted, the use of a fudge 'free will that is not actually free will' term is unlikely to appeal, because it won't mean anything and can't be meaningfully deployed in a courtroom. Take for example a hypothetical situation where it is accepted that a certain person committed a violent act as a result of, say, genetics and an upbringing in a deprived, abusive, violent context involving emotional disturbance (as has already been argued in some cases of 16 year olds) in combination with a particular set of circumstances leading up to the moment of action, then the fudge definition will not be able to inform sentencing (which is the part we are all interested in and not the facts of who did what and when, for which the methodology will not change).

Zoon, would you advocate that all of society, and not just theists, retain the use of the word 'god' (perhaps in an oath before making sworn testimony in court) as a term to describe the entity believed in by theists? Do you think we should all keep going to church? If not, then I think you are being a tad inconsistent.

archibald wrote:Zoon, would you advocate that all of society to retain the use of the word 'god' (perhaps in an oath before making sworn testimony in court) as a term to describe the entity believed in by many? Do you think we should all keep going to church? If not, then I think you are being a tad inconsistent.

I’m not advocating keeping the concept of free will in the sense of freedom from the laws of physics, so I don’t see any inconsistency in not advocating retention of the concept of god either.

zoon wrote:

archibald wrote:Zoon, would you advocate that all of society to retain the use of the word 'god' (perhaps in an oath before making sworn testimony in court) as a term to describe the entity believed in by many? Do you think we should all keep going to church? If not, then I think you are being a tad inconsistent.

I’m not advocating keeping the concept of free will in the sense of freedom from the laws of physics, so I don’t see any inconsistency in not advocating retention of the concept of god either.

Don't try a switcheroo with me.

I didn't ask you about concepts. I asked you about terms, since you appear to want to retain the public and legal use, applied to everyone, irrespective of their beliefs to the contrary, of the term in the case of free will.

Arnold Layne wrote:

jamest wrote:What's funny about silicon chips who spread the word about "you don't have free will, squire", is that they hope to change the mind of other silicon chips... as though they have a choice in the matter... or, indeed, as though it matters to a silicon chip to spread the word.

Fubar. Materialism, atheism, irresponsibility, philosophy via robots, the whole fuckin' shebang. You guys silicon chips are seriously fucked in the head.

Some geezer, in a thread not far away from here, argues the case that rationality is dying due to ideology. That geezer really needs to read this thread, where he/she will see the point of giving a fuck about anything dying due to the ropiest of all ideologies. A thread where most of the participants are seemingly passionate about acquiring a status of not giving a fuck about anything. The irony is heartbreaking.

... I'd laugh my bollocks off if it weren't so seriously terminal for you all. Which wouldn't be a problem if it made any sense (hey, the truth is the truth), but look at you all, exhibiting care, thus readily undermining the very ontology of your own spiel.

... And then look at me, giving you the finger. And wonder how a silicon chip could have ever become thus.

People used to go to tents to observe freak shows. These days, all they have to do is read threads about free will online in an atheist forum. Is that progress? I'd say yes, since now we can see clearly that the real freaks in this world are the diseased/disabled of the mind, not the body. The mind is closer to reality than any body.

Despite the fact that I'd chosen just to read this thread and not comment, I feel I am forced to intervene here.

I know you feel you have no choice but to post in your inimitable style, James. That must be the case as you have been posting this way since I came on here years ago. And you talk about irony!

Years ago? It only seems quite recent that I started calling you a twat?

So, show you have free will. This should be simple for you.

Everything like this is simple for me. Unfortunately, for everyone else, they're not like me. Ho ho ho.

1. Show, with reasoning, how free will is granted by your god. Hint: you may have to go a bit deeper than saying that we are all god and so free will is a given.

I'm not here in this thread to present a proof for God's existence. I'm just informing you that if God exists, then nothing else does. As such, ANY [experienced] event is produced and observed by God. The bottom-line, for those lacking in the skull department, is that IF God exists, then free will is an absolute certainty... for God's omniprescence prohibits the attribution of causality to anything else.

2. Do this in a conciliatory style rather than your more (admittedly amusing) abrasive and dismissive style.

Go and fuck yourself, squire. If you want me to be formal, then be formal yourself.

I realise 2. might be a step too far.

I can be as boring and formal as you like. I only put on the airs & graces when it matters though, to others. There was a time when I used to think that it mattered all of the time, and now I even barely do that in communion with God. I only do it with 'humans' because they take offence all of the time, the silly twats.

Looking forward to your lovely response.

I'm very bored, Arnold. Of all of this POLITICS. I'm responding to you because I sense that you're genuine/sincere. It's okay that you're an atheist and Man City fan, for instance, I can still luv ya.

Best wishes, squire.

archibald wrote: At the end of the day however, as I keep saying, keeping it under wraps just in case of society imploding is (a) pessimistic and (b) pointless, if the case for free will continues to weaken.

Regarding the bishop's wife's response ... it is not attractive to me either, but then so what?

I was lucky enough to be at the conference when Gerry Coyne presented. At the end of the conference I waited to say a few words to Gerry. He was talking to a man that was (I think) upset by the prospect of having no free will. He was obviously taking the more common or garden interpretation of free will. I don't remember the exacts words but he was disturbed by the fact that he was not choosing the notes he was playing whilst he was improvising and playing jazz music. The thing that struck me as odd, (I play a mean stereo), was that I would have thought choosing a note during improvisation was not the most obvious candidate for free will as it is a practiced spur of the moment type thing. Either way the gentleman was visibly upset by being told he had no free will. I don't agree with the way Gerry uses the word choose, but that is neither here nor there.

I remember being in bit of a funk for a few days on loosing my belief in free will. And it is amusing how people get quite defensive when it is suggested their version of free will that they have is either an illusion or not the real thing.