Does free will exist?

[Hypnalis]

It makes no difference of you believe in free will or not ..
... unless you get too far into predeterminism, and stop taking responsibility for yourself and your actions.

"It's all an illusion anyway" is an infinitely powerful excuse for bad behavior.

So personally, I don't trust people who don't believe in free will unless it's for religious reasons, and even then I'm very cautious.

Why religion?: a moral foundation and corresponding ethical framework is a passable replacement for personal responsibility.
Sometimes. But psychopaths can (and do) subvert religious principles, so it's a good indicator, but it's not sufficient.

The alternative?
Imagine handing control of nuclear weapons to someone with the morality of the average 4-year-old. Because given time, that's what will happen. The consequences of this are unusually visible in the 2020's.

 

[All-Rounder]

"stop taking responsibility for yourself and your actions" - recently I had to give up a lot of people, 7 to be exact, who did that and it's truly terrible to be on the receiving end of it continuously.

 

[lunarious]

It makes no difference of you believe in free will or not ..

... unless you get too far into predeterminism, and stop taking responsibility for yourself and your actions.

In Norway they are dumb/kind they want to "Heal" drug addicts and such. They should have executed me.

 

[DrBadStrings]

In Norway they are dumb/kind they want to "Heal" drug addicts and such. They should have executed me.

That's a pretty terrible thing to say all around. Most folks suffering with addiction do need help if they are to have any long term success, and none deserve execution.

 

[lunarious]

I was waiting for a Healthy response, but I don't like your name here.

Can you go around with such a name?

I myself am not Drug addict. But i've been dishonored and placed together with Drug addict - in the same group. In APAS i think.

 

[TBRS1]

People are born into a world that is already tangled in an infinite number of cause/effect relationships: things like your genetic make-up, the economic/family situation you are born into, the country and local you live in, the opportunities available to live and grow and learn, and so on - literally forever and ever.

Within that tangled mess of cause/effect relationships an individual does make choices...

...but all those choices are also determined by the cause/effect relationships one is embedded in.

So, sure. On one level you are free to pick and choose. But in another level, all choices come out of the possibilities that the cause/effect relations allow, so, no. Free will is limited to what is possible.

Short answer - people kinda do have free will, but they also kinda don't.

 

[Judge]

Do we, or don't we? Ultimately it's all relative.

That on an individual level, it amounts to a personal assessment of risk versus reward. On a collective level it becomes far more complex, reflecting how a society may go about encouraging or discouraging one's exercise of free will, in either a subtle or profound manner.

One is technically always free to follow their own will, but the ultimate consideration is at what cost it may come at. In a world full of those who are so reticent to sacrifice liberty for security.

 

[Jonn]

@OP

And consider:

When does the question of free will come into play for an individual?
When they are a zygote?
A fetus?
A child?
And adult with an unadulterated fully developed brain?

Also consider:

The knowledge of the individual...
The experience...
The wisdom...

This begs raises the question:
Are there greater or lesser degrees of "Free Will"?

 

[Peter Morrison]

Great philosophical question. All free will has parameters. If will is a desire you can act on, then I suppose you have free will. All actions will have consequences, so your free will is curtailed by the limits of your actions, by you or by forces trying to stop you. I suppose we have free will if we have choices.

 

[Au Naturel]

 

[Au Naturel]

In Norway they are dumb/kind they want to "Heal" drug addicts and such. They should have executed me.

If some drug addicts can be "healed" - whatever you mean by that - and perhaps others can remain productive and peaceful despite their addiction, what you think they should have done to you is irrelevant. That's just your inner demon talking.

 

[Au Naturel]

Imagine handing control of nuclear weapons to someone with the morality of the average 4-year-old. Because given time, that's what will happen. The consequences of this are unusually visible in the 2020's.

LOL! We already did for 4 years. Actually, I think both of my children at the age of 4 had much better morality than he did.

Moral behavior is not based on religious principles, ideology, law, or logic. That's just rule-following. A robot does that. All those easily result in mass murder and untold suffering.

Useful morality is only based on empathy. The desire not to hurt other people because seeing others hurting hurts you too. Without empathy, it is perfectly okay to kill that million people in service of a "greater good."

 

[Jonn]

If will is a desire you can act on, then I suppose you have free will.

There have been psychology articles suggesting that we are "driven" to make a choice before a conscious decision is made.
If so, is their actual freedom of choice/will involved?

I might see if I can find them.

 

[Hypnalis]

LOL! We already did for 4 years. Actually, I think both of my children at the age of 4 had much better morality than he did.

Moral behavior is not based on religious principles, ideology, law, or logic. That's just rule-following. A robot does that. All those easily result in mass murder and untold suffering.

Useful morality is only based on empathy. The desire not to hurt other people because seeing others hurting hurts you too. Without empathy, it is perfectly okay to kill that million people in service of a "greater good."

You're not wrong of course, but perhaps not entirely right either.

As I understand it, children start learning emotional regulation at about four. Your reference is to someone who has a different issue.
Amusingly enough, it's one he shares as an individual with his political opponents as a group. They hate each other because they see their own weaknesses, and it makes it impossible to attack "the enemy" without also attacking yourself / your own side.

My personal theory is that people aren't naturally moral at all.
Rather, I believe normal humans conform to the cultural behaviors we learn while young. And important factor is that a significant part of brain development in this general domain is "installing" inhibitions. We're not (self-) controlled only by learning what to do, but also by learning what not to do.

Religions complement this with a ruleset that (at some point, often in the past) was based on moral principles rather than cultural norms.

A subtle difference, not widely supported in modern literature? Yes. But irrelevant? Not to me.
And as you may have noticed I'm not religious at all, though I respect believers, and overall I'm happy to share society with them. We don't all need to use the same "system". But when the majority is inflexibly selfish, trouble is inevitable.

"Western" culture disconnected from any kind of morality long ago. And it's breaking up at the same time, under the destructive pressure of situationally flexible moral standards" based on moral relativity. Which nets out to no principles at all.

BTW - I'm nor sure about forum rules, but I'm happy to discuss politics if you want. I'm not from the US, and US politics appears random and chaotic to an outsider at the moment, but some of it is interesting.

Fair warning though:; I'm one of those people that if the "Overton window" gets attenuated (or splits into two) is treated with suspicion by both sides /lol.
I believe politics has to be about negotiation and compromise. So when excessive polarization interferes with that, and the cry goes up: "With us or against us, 100% or you're an enemy" I'm against both sides

 

[Au Naturel]

You're not wrong of course, but perhaps not entirely right either.

As I understand it, children start learning emotional regulation at about four. Your reference is to someone who has a different issue.
Amusingly enough, it's one he shares as an individual with his political opponents as a group. They hate each other because they see their own weaknesses, and it makes it impossible to attack "the enemy" without also attacking yourself / your own side.

My personal theory is that people aren't naturally moral at all.
Rather, I believe normal humans conform to the cultural behaviors we learn while young. And important factor is that a significant part of brain development in this general domain is "installing" inhibitions. We're not (self-) controlled only by learning what to do, but also by learning what not to do.

Religions complement this with a ruleset that (at some point, often in the past) was based on moral principles rather than cultural norms.

A subtle difference, not widely supported in modern literature? Yes. But irrelevant? Not to me.
And as you may have noticed I'm not religious at all, though I respect believers, and overall I'm happy to share society with them. We don't all need to use the same "system". But when the majority is inflexibly selfish, trouble is inevitable.

"Western" culture disconnected from any kind of morality long ago. And it's breaking up at the same time, under the destructive pressure of situationally flexible moral standards" based on moral relativity. Which nets out to no principles at all.

BTW - I'm nor sure about forum rules, but I'm happy to discuss politics if you want. I'm not from the US, and US politics appears random and chaotic to an outsider at the moment, but some of it is interesting.

Fair warning though:; I'm one of those people that if the "Overton window" gets attenuated (or splits into two) is treated with suspicion by both sides /lol.
I believe politics has to be about negotiation and compromise. So when excessive polarization interferes with that, and the cry goes up: "With us or against us, 100% or you're an enemy" I'm against both sides

I agree with most of what you said.

However, I hold that the root of all morality is more fundamental than just learning cultural norms. Humans come primed to pick up on cultural norms, but there is evidence that children have notions of collaboration, fairness, empathy, tribalism, and social hierarchy built in. Like any other trait, individuals have varying levels of these traits. Those who don't generally are thought to suffer from some sort of psychopathy. They would not survive well in a paleolithic setting.

Interesting article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/
Cultural norms have to do with tribal cohesion and is a layer on top of what is there instinctively.

The real problem with cultural norms is that they are devised by whoever happens to be at the top of the hierarchy. As long as there is a struggle for control, there is no set of universal cultural norms. It also means that whoever is at the bottom of the hierarchy gets screwed, but the people who promulgate the norms consider that a feature and not a bug. Religion is no exception.

I believe there is a politics section to the forum.

 

[Outdated]

We had another thread about this a while back:

https://www.autismforums.com/threads/free-will.44051/#post-988543

 

[Jonn]

@OP

Also, where does "free will" stand if a person has been brainwashed through a religious cult or a victim of an MK-ULTRA type program?

Academic philosophies seem to ignore these sorts of real-world considerations.

 

[lunarious]

I agree with most of what you said.

However, I hold that the root of all morality is more fundamental than just learning cultural norms. Humans come primed to pick up on cultural norms, but there is evidence that children have notions of collaboration, fairness, empathy, tribalism, and social hierarchy built in. Like any other trait, individuals have varying levels of these traits. Those who don't generally are thought to suffer from some sort of psychopathy. They would not survive well in a paleolithic setting.

Interesting article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/
Cultural norms have to do with tribal cohesion and is a layer on top of what is there instinctively.

The real problem with cultural norms is that they are devised by whoever happens to be at the top of the hierarchy. As long as there is a struggle for control, there is no set of universal cultural norms. It also means that whoever is at the bottom of the hierarchy gets screwed, but the people who promulgate the norms consider that a feature and not a bug. Religion is no exception.

I believe there is a politics section to the forum.

The Diety is Just. The diety priotitises the flock over the individual (the organisation?). It also recognizes the individual Superiority. And The Diety says "my Paradise Garden is broad as Heaven and Earth".

So make space when you are told make space in sit-downs. If you want to fight me on this assumption, i do not want to fight for the text you said i have boldened. Because ... there is a word.

So we are born Superiour and get converted to whatever as Muslim, Buddhist or Christian or Atheist. On a broad Earth.

Which brings in things as "Myers Briggs personality Instructions MBTI" and Humanitarian nodes. Humatiarian sciences are oppositional to Scientific sciences. People chose Sience and lost their Humanity.

 

[Outdated]

The Diety is Just.

Someone who has trouble keeping their weight down?

I think you mean Deity, which to many of us is right up there with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. Religious Freedom means I have the right to believe as I wish without being lectured to by others.

 

[lunarious]

I can ... say my meaning on PM.